[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> But we're talking about XPath/XQuery here ... not arguing
> whether type-aware schema validation is a Good Thing to have
> or not. Is it worth the weight on XPath? I haven't heard a
> compelling argument. XSLT??? There doesn't seem to be a
> compelling case.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I think that people are
actually using match patterns as a sort of "structural type detection"
mechanism. People write template rules that say "when I get one of
these, do this", and they are defining "one of these" by means of a
pattern that is in effect a type. Now very often there's a one-to-one
mapping between these types and element names, so the patterns are very
simple. But I think that once people are dealing with really large
vocabularies, constructing the patterns in terms of element names gets
more and more difficult, and being able to match against types at
different levels of a type hierarchy gets more and more valuable.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@ntlworld.com
work: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
|
