Re: Client-side-resolved Indirection

> identifiers work.
> 
> To answer the question someone posed:  No, I, for one, did not use SGML
> public identifiers before the advent of the SGML Open catalogue, because
> no two systems I had resolved them in the same way.

Very true, and they were a pain.  But I used them extensively.  If they 
got resolved, I tried not to worry (other than once, per setup, per 
sofdtware package, per system) how.  My point is even that was better 
than nothing!
> 
> I think FPIs are a Good Thing, and I'd like to see them in XML.  Like
> Tim and some others, I went into this process assuming FPIs and SGML
> Open catalogs would clearly be part of the spec.  But FPIs are, I think,
> not Absolutely Essentia.  But one thing seems clear to me:  if we have 
>them, we
> need to specify how to handle them.  If we don't, we are giving up
> without reason on the goal of interoperability and complete explicit
> definition of the language.

1)  Yes, FPIs are a Good Thing, for me and for many of my clients.
    Yes, I used them even before SGML Open.
2)  Yes, I would like a full spec for handling them as part of XML, but 
the consensus seems to be against that.
3)  Yes, the Web requires URLs just now.
4)  So, yes I will accept the "Magic Cookie" approach.  It isn't good.  
But it gives me a hook.  Yes, this is a compromise, and not one I like.  
But is this better than nothing?  Yes, it is.


--Debbie Lapeyre