W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Remarques on W3C Editor's Draft 13 November 2007

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:59:27 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2fxys1xds.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On Nov 26, 2007 4:23 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|> |> | === p:uuid ===
|> |>
|> |> I don't understand what you're asking.
|> |
|> | Well my point was : why isn't just UUID a possible value of the
|> | "scheme" option in p:label-elements ?
|>
|> That would be a new feature, are you suggesting that we should add it?
|> UUIDs make for awfully long IDs and the p:uuid step is optional so
|> I'd be reluctant to make UUID a required scheme for p:label-elements.
|> I'm also reluctant to have some required and some optional schemes.
|
| I understand your point, but since we now have only one XSLT step, I
| don't understand to have to create a new step (even optional) instead
| of simply adding an optional scheme and avoid multiplication of steps

Now I'm really confused. The p:uuid step generates a UUID and places
it where the user wants it (in an attribute value, in element content, etc.)
It doesn't duplicate the functionality of p:label-elements AFAICS.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Where are you dying tonight?--Evelyn
http://nwalsh.com/            | Waugh

Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 21:59:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT