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

Re: p:label-elements builtin

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:22:12 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2y7fmbb23.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh writes:
|> |> I find "integer" very limitative. It should be
|> |> "implementation-defined" as generate-id()
|> |
|> | I disagree.  Not using a predictable algorithm in XSLT's generate-id()
|> | is just for efficiency reasons, and is very inconvenient for users
|> | (e.g. when comparing output from different XSLT processors, or even
|> | different runs of the same XSLT processor).  I don't see any such
|> | efficiency consideration in our case.
|> The problem with sequential integers is that if you apply the step to
|> two different documents and then "p:wrap" them together, you're
|> basically guaranteed to have duplicates.
| I detect conflicting requirements from conflicting use cases.  I thing
| regression testing (which wants predictable outputs) is at least as
| common a requirement as composability.  (Why doesn't the prefix arg't
| take care of your use case?  Assuming for some reason it doesn't. . .)
| How about one more option:
|  <p:option name="use-integers" value="false"/>

Bah. Whatever gets us to Last Call faster. I hereby change my comments
on this step to simply "concur".

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | When a book and a head collide and
http://nwalsh.com/            | there is a hollow sound, is it always
                              | the book?-- Lichtenberg

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 17:22:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC