Re: [xsl] question about generate-id()

Subject: Re: [xsl] question about generate-id()
From: Dave Pawson <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:42:25 +0100
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:06:40 -0400
"G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >So not 'unique' as xml:id defines unique?
> Yes as xml:id defines "unique", just not within xml:id's uniqueness
> scope.
> It has the same properties as xml:id, just in a different value set 
> than where you find a document's xml:id values.
> It *is* an identifier.  It *is* a name token.  It *is* unique in 
> *its* value set.

Which is my point. an xml:id has other properties, different scope
(= value set??? )

> It also happens to have a lexical constraint of only alphanumeric 
> characters,

The other half of xml:id, no problem with that. 

always generated from different nodes."
> >
> >Again only in the context of the call to the function.
> >I.e. there is no explicit scope.
> That sentence describes the scope:  the set of nodes.  That scope 
> doesn't say anything about the document's identifiers, but just to be 
> clear, Mike cites the sentence in 16.6.4 in response to what you
> posit here:

> > > The spec explicitly says "There is no guarantee that a generated
> > > unique identifier will be distinct from any unique IDs specified
> > > in the source document.".

Yes. agreed, that is the bummer. Why not? James isn't normally so

> >
> >So 'generate-a-random-string' might be more accurate than
> >generate-id?
> No, "generate-a-name-token-suitable-for-an-id()" might be more 
> "accurate", 

I think, slowly, we're agreeing. The name is inaccurate, read today.
16.6.4 is the get-out. a context definition would help, 16.6.4 
with both 'unique' and 'distinct' is the oddity. 

Again. I'll leave it at that. Seems Mike won't be taking it to the WG.

Tks Ken. 



Dave Pawson

Current Thread