Lists Home |
Date Index |
I was going to say this was still an unresolved issue in XQuery based on issue 307 until I checked and saw
which seems to confirm your fears.
From: David Carlisle [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thu 12/5/2002 8:16 AM
To: Dare Obasanjo
Cc: jonathan.Robie@datadirect-technologies.com; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] bohemians, gentry
> So your only complaint is that you believe that an XML document with a
> provided schema will be forced to be typed?
No. I have _lots_ of complaints, but that is a correct summary of this
particular one. As far as I see there's nothing in document() for
example that says read the document at that URI not some cut down view
of it that you may infer from some schema that you find lying
around. (For good readons the schema spec is very permissive in how a
schema aware parser may associate schemas with documents).
So basically if I use document() to load the document
then I know in XSLT1 that string(A) is "012" in all processors.
In XPath2 it could be anything, from an error to whatever is the
canonical lexical form of whatever type some schema applied.
And from XSLT I don't get to control that. this is a massive backward
step in interoperability.
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.