Hi Jorge, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Jorge Williams <jorge.willi...@rackspace.com> wrote: > Okay confirmed that the validation works if you remove the explicit > casts...but doesn't that mean that there's another bug? Regardless as to > whether or not the explicit casts are needed the behavior of the validation > should be the same.
Without confirming with the XPath 2.0 spec (but I'll check!) I would agree that even if the XDM nodes are typed, an explicit cast on the node should still produce the same result. But this bug is of much lesser severity, than the bug which has been solved upto now -- I say this, because I don't see a point in doing explicit casts on nodes which are already typed. But we should still try to solve this bug as well :) As a side note, an explicit cast on node which is already typed may be useful in cases where, the type to which a cast is attempted is related to the type of the node via inheritance (again we would need to check the spec, what is the expected behavior in this case). -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org
