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

[Len Bullard]
>[Paul Prescod]

[Martin Cottreau], actually.  I just quoted Paul in my original e-mail, but
the formatting didn't make that clear.  Sorry.
>I think the Web starts with the URL.  The URN has a lot of work behind
>So do FPIs and credible members of the list are asking for it per Jon's
>instructions to open the issue now.  No, let's not descend into long 
>and circular debates, but let's list the requirements, make sure we 
>can do without the FPI if we think it is indeed to hard to implement 
>or will not be supported by a system component that even if hard to 
>build, is only built once, or provided by a system vendor (e.g, 
>is in the tool kit that comes from the platform vendor like MFC 
>objects or Active-X/OLE objects).  Tim's points are great, but 
>other than keeping up on the track of system requirements vs 
>document management theory, we still must pursue the FPI until 
>we know that we can safely punt.

>len bullard
There are applications of XML that don't require FPIs, the biggest one
simply being a replacement for HTML, so people will stop putting
processing information in comments.  It's not all singing and all
dancing, but simple XML with URL (for now...) and style sheets
would solve a lot of people's problems right now.

I agree we have to consider what impact not having FPI will have,
but my gut feeling is that a) the ERB has already done this before
deciding to drop them in the first place and b) the Web will
evolve towards some sort of FPI mechanism. 
(wasn't that the point of the original e-mail in this thread?)

We shouldn't try to redefine addressing on the Web: it's clear there
are other activities within the W3C which may solve the problem.
We have to concentrate on making XML easy and useful.   According
to Jon we only have a six month window to just get a new markup
language out there.  On FPI, I hope we punt.