- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:17:45 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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"/> 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) iD8DBQFG3ZM5kjnJixAXWBoRAqPbAJ9NBtHivtEuXdTrNiXib2++ghobGwCeIOm4 a4Cv8ax4vN4ZWEKPOQUAUzA= =K6VH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 17:18:19 UTC