Michael Kay wrote:

> Yes, but I think that in any language, you can't expect a type
> to be a completely precise assertion about the set of values that
> you will accept.
> For example, in Java, you can't say "I will accept an Integer or
> a String".

  But there are a lot of stuff in Java I don't want in XSLT ;-)  And
why not, it could be useful, maybe?

> You have to declare your type as the nearest named type in your
> type hierarchy, and rely on explicit parameter validation to
> make a more precise test.

  That's not how I see it for XSLT, but ok, that's consistent.

> I don't think that arguments about the economics of purchasing
> the software are likely to carry much weight.

  PS: That's certainly not an argument of mine.  I am convinced the
purchase is worth its price.  But anyway, there could be several
reasons for SA to be not available.

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/