- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:38:25 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / 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? I already proposed to split the problem in two parts (with two different component): * generation * uniqueness checking And for the generation I say : implementation defined, the other solution is a 'mode' option that have at least decimal, hexadecimal, base64 and random Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:38:31 UTC