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

Re: Client-side-resolved Indirection

From: Deborah A. Lapeyre <dlapeyre@mulberrytech.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:04:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9612020944.A7901-0100000@netcom>
> 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
Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 13:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC