RE: [xacml] xpath-expression datatype

[Seth Proctor <Seth.Proctor@Sun.COM>]

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:31, Polar Humenn wrote:
> Now, I wonder, why the change to "#string". I know it's the fact that they
> *are* strings.  However, they are special strings, i.e. all XPATH
> expressions are strings, but NOT all strings are XPATH expressions.
> 
> Is there any special reason to make them strings? Such as you want to
> concatenate them or something?

For all the reasons discussed in this thread already. We're only talking
about one string, in one example in the specification. I'd like that
example to be meaningful in the scope of the funcationality defined in
the spec. The only functions in the spec that could use that argument
accept strings as input.

Let's be clear here. I'm not talking about "them" plural. I'm not
talking about changing standardard funtionality. I'm not trying to
remove meaning from anything in the specification. I'm merely suggesting
how to make a single example more meaningful to those who are looking at
it for the first time. Specifically, I'm suggesting that the datatype
used at line 1072 be string.


seth