RE: Using or ignoring Types in XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0

> 
> > I still contend that type doesn't belong in XSLT,
> 
> Careful Kurt, Mike Kay will accuse you of talking rubbish!
>  
> regards DaveP
> 

I suppose it all depends what XSLT is for. If it is for transforming structures, dependant on how those structures are named, then no, types aren't going to be a huge concern. If XSLT is for transforming structures dependant on not only the name of structures, but the names of the types of thing contained in structures, then types are key.

I can see arguments both ways. Personally I like XSLT v.1 because it is tightly focused on just transforming named structures, with a modicum of useful typing and content transformation thrown in for convenience. Certainly it isn't perfect, but I quite enjoy using XSLT, and will enthuse about it if given the opportunity.

I have assumed that transforming values is not central to XSLT (at least v.1), but maybe that is wrong?

All the best

Mark Seaborne

The information in this email is sent in confidence for the addressee only and may be legally privileged.  Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Origo Services Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this email or the contents. 


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