- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 22:59:34 +0000
- To: streich@austin.sar.slb.com
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 16:56 15/10/96 CDT, streich@austin.sar.slb.com wrote: > >> At 13:49 15/10/96 CDT, streich@austin.sar.slb.com wrote: >> >> At 11:14 15/10/96 -0700, Tim Bray wrote: >> >> >> >> >I'd still like to keep at least a subset >> >> >of the nice clean FSI syntax. >> >> >> >> What is the functionality you want from FSIs that you can't get from URLs? >> > >> >At least better opportunities for indirection. >> >> How do FSIs offer this? What makes you think URLs can't offer indirection? > >I didn't say that URLs don't offer indirection, only that there are >better opportunities with FSIs. With an FSI, I can add my own storage >object handler to pull the doc out of a DMS, for example. Why can't you add a URL scheme to do this? It's just as easy for an entity manager to recognize a URL scheme name and pass the scheme part off to some handler as it is for it to recognize a storage manager name and pass the SOI off to some handler. James
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 18:05:27 UTC