W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > December 1996

Re: FPI's in NOTATION declarations

From: Charles F. Goldfarb <Charles@SGMLsource.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 08:46:21 GMT
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: dgd@cs.bu.edu (David G. Durand), w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <32a34070.15224293@mail.alink.net>
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:18:57 -0500, Paul Prescod
<papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>At 02:05 PM 11/29/96 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:
>>I
>>add a new suggestion, that by allowing a _list_ of URIs in the SYSTEM ID,
>>we can have all the advantages of PUBLIC, without the drawback of the new
>>syntax. (I don't know what this drawback is, but some people obviously feel
>>that there is one).]
>
>I think that the idea of allowing multiple URIs in a reference is a good
>one. It provides a fallback for network failure.

The Formal System Identifier (FSI) syntax allows multiple alternative Storage
Object Specifications. URI and/or URL can be Storage Managers, and individual
multiple alternative URIs and/or URLs can then be Storage Object Specifications
within a single FSI.

>But I also think that we should keep the SGML public identifier syntax that
>hundreds of products and systems already support.

We could do both.
--
Charles F. Goldfarb * Information Management Consulting * +1(408)867-5553
           13075 Paramount Drive * Saratoga CA 95070 * USA
  International Standards Editor * ISO 8879 SGML * ISO/IEC 10744 HyTime
 Prentice-Hall Series Editor * CFG Series on Open Information Management
--
Received on Sunday, 1 December 1996 03:46:59 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:46 EDT