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