RE: uuid question

> I also have one general (and heretical?) question about p:uuid and
> p:hash: Why do we have these steps at all? They are just a 
> special form
> of p:string-replace, ...so what if we had p:uuid() and 
> p:hash() as XPath
> extension functions? I know it would mean to define a nice APIs for
> these functions, whether and how they accept additional 
> parameters etc.,
> but in the end, I think we could gain much more flexibility. But it is
> probably too late for considering such a big change, plus there may be
> other serious arguments against this which I don't see... 

I will raise one argument against this idea myself: XProc is built on
the principle of having a rich (and extensible) library of steps, not
extension XPath functions. Furthermore, complex XPath extension
functions are much more difficult to maintian than steps; the fewer of
extension functions we have the better, IMHO.

Regards,
Vojtech