Re: generate-id() problem

ok sorry about the confusion I made. what I need to do is to generate
a unique identifier for different nodes. so I need to generate an XML
of the form below

<rule:foo rdf:ID="rule_N2320">
   <rule:bar rdf:resource="constraint_N3456"/>
</rule:foo>

<constraint:test rdf:ID="constraint_N3456">
  <t1/>
  <t2/>
<constraint:tes>

ok so as it is obvious in the code above, I need to generate two
unique values, here "N2320" and "N3456", using a funciton and attach
them to my terms, "rule" and "constraint".

I need to generate these two numbers at the same time in my xslt
template as I need to keep track of the generated elements and their
ids later in the code. I thought of generate-id() as the suitable
function for my purpose. In one of the tutorials I read on XSLT it
says that generate-id() can be used to generate a unique string for a
node, so based on this single line hint, I thought that would be what
I need but apparantly it isn't.

thanks in advance for the help,
-Nima

generate-id() with no parameters is equivalent to generate-id(.) - it
returns the identifier of the context node. If you call it twice with the
same argument, it is guaranteed to return the same answer.

You seem to be in need of a completely different function, so you need to
explain what you are trying to do.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nima.kaviani@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:nima.kaviani@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Nima Kaviani
> Sent: 24 November 2006 08:38
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:  generate-id() problem
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a problem with using generate-id()
>
> apparantly, as I see it in my code, generate-id is dependent
> to the context and the current location in the xml document.
> that is, when I use generate-id() twice and in the same
> context it returns the same value though I need two different values!
>
> however, when I use generate-id(../..) or generate-id(/) it
> returns some other values to me!
>
> is there anything wrong with my settings and assumptions? do
> I have any way around it?
>
> thanks,
> -Nima