At 00:47 30/03/97 +0000, Peter Flynn wrote: >Is it too much to propose that an identifier must be > >either SYSTEM "url" >or PUBLIC "fpi" "url" This seems a reasonable compromise to me. No interoperability is lost, because there's always a URL that the system can use. It adds very little burden to implementers: they can just completely ignore the public identifier if they want. The spec could just say something like: In addition to a system literal an external identifier may include a public identifier. A system may use the public identifier to try to generate an alternative URL. If a system is unable to do so, it must use the URL specified in the system literal. In a future version, when we have a resolution mechanism, we could maybe allow omission of the system identifier when there's a public identifier. The question is: do those who have been clamouring for public ids think this is better than no public ids at all? JamesReceived on Monday, 31 March 1997 09:13:08 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:19 EDT