- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:39:23 +0100
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: EXPath CG <public-expath@w3.org>
> > I like that approach. Actually why don't we provide such "converter > functions" from both xs:hexBinary and xs:base64Binary (plus their > lexical representation) to an implementation-dependent type, which can > be used only as input parameters (or as return value) of the binary > module functions? I think there's a considerable risk that a user who gets a base64 value (say) from somewhere would pass it to a method that accepts hexB on one implementation and b64B on another, forgetting to invoke the conversion, and thus producing non-portable code. And I don't think it solves the problem of passing untypedAtomic (or an untyped node). Michael Kay Saxonica
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 18:22:42 UTC