- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:37:56 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> / Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
> | Um. Having one implementation where you can rely on that doesn't seem
> | very useful: people will write pipelines that work in your
> | implementation and then find they don't work in others. It's like
> | relying on argument evaluation order, or how a++ + a++ comes out in a
> | given C compiler. If there's a need for non-duplication between
> | documents it should either be required or there should be a switch to
> | guarantee it.
>
> So what do folks think? Sequential numbers, some guarantee of global
> uniqueness, or implementation defined?
Prefer: Sequential numbers.
Live with: A boolean option, default false, if true means 'best
efforts' to be unique (i.e. as per XSLT), but _no_ guarantee/no
checking.
I can't live with uniqueness guarantees (full or partial) -- I want to
use this for keys, not for IDs.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG3+aUkjnJixAXWBoRAiO1AJoC7FnQlqmQkJR2KSFffzN+WTK0SACfZkpp
cuixqFQdxTeIZRgCp6NrMXI=
=gxFJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:38:33 UTC