Re: The furore over PUBLIC

James Clark wrote:

> 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?

Yes.  At least in this case, should my customer wish to implement their 
own registry and resolution services, they do it based on a common
basis.
That is considerably better than the alternative in which they might 
create their own protocol.  (No, that is not a joke; it was proposed.)

len bullard
lockheed martin