This question has been on my TODO list to ask the folks at MulberryTech
XSL List for quite some time.
I think this came about in XPath DM 3.0 regarding xs:numeric as per spec
ref:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel-3/#types-hierarchy
In the type hierachy xs:numeric now appears for the first time spec-wise
(I believe) and it's on the right-hand side under "union types".
Mathematically this seems inconsistent with respect to xs:anyAtomicType
given that it as a diagrammed type itself appears on the left-hand side
of the type hierarchy diagram and so does not identify itself as a union
type. But surely xs:anyAtomicType is in fact a union type
(set-theoretically/type-theoretically speaking). So with respect to
"union/non-union" reasoning which is correct xs:anyAtomicType or
xs:numeric as far as the diagram goes? Or, rephasing, why is xs:numeric
treated somehow differently to xs:anyAtomicType?
On the other hand, perhaps this is all to do with some practical reason
for injecting xs:numeric into the XPath DM 3.0 type hierarchy as a union
type so as not to disaffect the status quo?
Any thoughts/insight from XSL List community?
Justin Johansson
Twitter: ** *@MartianOdyssey* <https://twitter.com/MartianOdyssey> :
Project Clockwork: My invention of the fastest and most extensible XPath
engine for the JVM (or so I aspire to).
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--