- 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, norm -- 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