- 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 UTC