Re: Simple solution? Pub. Idents. vs URN.

At 10:33 AM 11/27/96, Paul Prescod wrote:
>I am going to presume that the "formal" part of FPIs is not really what we
>care about. If I am wrong, please correct me.

True, except insofar as the syntax and structure of FPIs contributes to the
core issues of persistence, and global uniqueness. The administrative
requirements of "formal" names ensure these as long as you follow the rules
when assigning identifiers.

>There seems to be a complete overlap of the intended goals of FPIs and URNs.
>But I think that these two beasts can co-habit.

FPIs will someday be part of URNs (when they become real).

><!ENTITY open-hatch
>         SYSTEM "http://www.textuality.com/boilerplate/OpenHatch.xml">
><!ENTITY open-hatch
>        PUBLIC "ISO .... "
>then we preserve the essential internet-centricity and usability of XML, but
>allow the traditional SGML "escape hatch" for people who want to

This is acceptable, but making the system identifier mandatory is a shame
given that it is the _optional_ FPI that is the persistent identifier. I'd
be happier if I could stop using URLs the _instant_ it was feasible.
Allowing URNs as system IDs seems a way to accomplish that.

>        a) redirect to a local copy,
>        b) to use documents off-line or
>        c) use older SGML tools that don't understand URLs.

   My XML parser can always implement catalogs by looking for URN syntax in
the sytem ID, and doing something sensible.

  -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________