- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:16:43 +0100
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- CC: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Hi John, >> Also, I assume that you're suggesting that the XPath 2.0 processor >> validate the content of the annotated element, such that, for >> example <foo xsi:type="xs:integer">rubbish</foo> isn't labelled as >> being of type xs:integer. Or are you suggesting that elements be >> labelled with types without necessarily being valid against those >> types? > > Hmm, that's a point I hadn't considered. It's formally messy, > because there is no formal definition of type validity in the DM -- > it can delegate to the XML Schema documentation for that. OTOH, > asking an XPath processor to cope with examples like that is more > than a bit awkward. I think this has been the main argument against using xsi:type to indicate the type of an element -- we can't do so blindly. On the other hand, it's the case even now that XPath processors are expected to validate values if the type of an element or attribute is a list whose item type is a union type and of course they have to be able to validate such values in order to do casting to the types that they recognise. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 13:17:06 UTC