- From: Terry Allen <tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:24:08 -0800 (PST)
- To: jjc@jclark.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
James writes:
>As for 1, I don't think the issue of how URNs are going to fit into the XML
framework has been decided. Adding SGML public identifiers and catalogs to
XML complicates this significantly. Before we add public identifiers to
XML, I think we need to have a clear picture of how URLs, URNs, FPIs,
non-formal public identifiers, system identifiers and catalogs all fit
together. I'm still unclear.
Just a note: I had argued for URNs as PIs, on the inarticulate
assumptions that only FPIs would be used as PIs and that PIs would
always be resolved as URNs. Paul has taken a different approach
(more articulately).
Currently, I think that an SGML Open catalogue could be expressed
as a set of ilinks, and that doing so would reduce the number of
syntaxes required for implementation (this is a different issue
from FPIs and URNs and PIs). Either way, some means of associating
catalogues or ilinksets with documents is required.
Regards,
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 11:24:23 UTC