RE: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XPath 2.0

[ Gunther Schadow ]

> Please, please, can't this decision for XPath not turned 
> around? Could strong typing not be made optional? Why should 
> one go through the hassle of adding explicit type conversions 
> if they do nothing else than making the hitherto conveniently 
> implicit conversions explicit. What's the point of this?
> 

It apparently is optional in this sense: if you do not supply a schema
for the xml source file, then the processor will have no types to assign
(except anyType).  Then everything will be more or less as before.

Now if you have a schema specified but you do not want the xslt
processor to pay attention to it, you will probably be out of luck, as
best I can tell from recent posts on this.

Cheers,

Tom P

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list