OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

At 02:33 PM 5/13/2002 -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
>5/13/2002 2:18:32 PM, Jonathan Robie 
><jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> wrote:
> >If XML is used as a serialization format for languages that use numerics of
> >fixed size, it is useful to know that you have an instance that will fit in
> >one of these numeric types.
>I'm not asserting that there is no rational reason for the distinctions made
>by the designers of the XSD types, I'm simply asserting that many are 
>to the needs of the vast majority of XQuery users.  The distinction
>between int, long, and short, for example, made perfect sense in a world where
>8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit machines were all commonplace.  It is now rather
>quaint for most of us, and will be a bizarre anachronism in 10 years or so
>(when I assume that even cellphones will use 64-bit processors).

Yes, this is a valid point.

>Keep it in XQuery if you insist, but please don't perpetuate the distinction
>in a conformance level of XQuery that attempts to find the 80/20 point.
>And if that's not the question on the table, sorry.

XQuery implementations will not need the more limited types. There may well 
be a place for them in XML Schema. Once someone can use them in a schema, 
XQuery has to support them.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS