[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> As for XPath, I think that the *lack* of datatypes made XPath 1.0 do an
> awful lot of guessing, and in an attempt to keep things simple, it said
> that ALL numbers are floating point numbers. I don't think that the lack of
> datatypes in the data XPath 1.0 used made things simpler or more
> straightforward, it led to baroque rules for guessing types.
This is empirically refuted by the most casual observation of the specs. The
XPath 1.0 spec is less than 20% of the size of draft XPath 2.0, which adds
data types.
XPath's rules actually make a lot of sense in practice, and I think you misuse
the word "baroque". The addition of data types is what would make XPath
baroque. You may disagree with some of the built-in coercion rules but I
don't see how anyone could say they are baroque. And then again, I think you
are in a minority when it comes to opinion on whether XPath 1.0's data typing
is more problematic that WXS data typing.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/
Python&XML column: Tour of Python/XML - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/18/py.
html
Python/Web Services column: xmlrpclib - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/w
ebservices/library/ws-pyth10.html
|
