Re: p:label-elements builtin

/ Innovimax SARL <> was heard to say:
| On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <> wrote:
|> / Richard Tobin <> 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

I'm hoping we can find a solution that doesn't require a new step.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <> | Birds are taken with pipes that imitate            | their own voices, and men with those
                              | sayings that are most agreeable to
                              | their own opinions.--Samuel Butler

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 12:15:34 UTC