bryan rasmussen wrote:
On 10/17/06, Florent Georges wrote:
I don't say it is not correct to use matches() to check
the lexical representation of a value, in order to try
to deduce some information about its type.
I was pointing out that while Roger may have phrased it
that way the reference to schematron seems to indicate
that what he actually means is that with matches he can
constrain the value.
Maybe.
It is perhaps an arrogant assumption
on my point but I think he means that he thought that
matches, using Unicode Regex would more closely and easily
match the requirements expressed in the schema because of
basically using the same constraint 0-9.
I can't see how using matches() can "more closely and
easily match the requirements expressed in the schema" than
a schema validation itself. And as Mike pointed out, what
about " 1 "?
But then you have to be aware you'll not get the type,
you'll get guesses.
As stated earlier I don't believe he wants to get the
type, he wants to constrain the value, and as for me I am
not at all interested in the type.
Maybe.
Regards,
--drkm
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Demandez à ceux qui savent sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--