I still contend that type doesn't belong in XSLT,
Careful Kurt, Mike Kay will accuse you of talking rubbish!
regards DaveP
I suppose it all depends what XSLT is for. If it is for transforming
structures, dependant on how those structures are named, then no, types aren't
going to be a huge concern. If XSLT is for transforming structures dependant on
not only the name of structures, but the names of the types of thing contained
in structures, then types are key.
I can see arguments both ways. Personally I like XSLT v.1 because it is tightly
focused on just transforming named structures, with a modicum of useful typing
and content transformation thrown in for convenience. Certainly it isn't
perfect, but I quite enjoy using XSLT, and will enthuse about it if given the
opportunity.
I have assumed that transforming values is not central to XSLT (at least v.1),
but maybe that is wrong?
All the best
Mark Seaborne
The information in this email is sent in confidence for the addressee only and
may be legally privileged. Unauthorised recipients must preserve this
confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in
transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and
may be unlawful.
Origo Services Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting
directly or indirectly from the use of this email or the contents.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list