Hi Mukul, Regardless of the severity I agree with Jorge that it's a pain if you can't write an XPath expression which works with both (Xerces and Saxon) implementations. Can this issue with the explicit cast be fixed in PsychoPath?
Thanks. Michael Glavassevich XML Technologies and WAS Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: mrgla...@ca.ibm.com E-mail: mrgla...@apache.org Mukul Gandhi <muk...@apache.org> wrote on 24/05/2012 01:50:21 AM: > 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
