Polar Humenn wrote:
> This approach requires "node-match" to be polymorphic and for XACML
> processors to understand abstract data types. Our simple type system
> cannot support it. We would now have much more than primitive types,
> and sequences of primitive types. We would have abstract data types
> (i.e. arbitrary XML nodes) introduced into the type system.
i agree. this opens the door for even more comparison issues (does
equality mean same object reference? instance? value? etc.)
i too prefer michiharu's initial proposal (string match).
b
