- From: Deborah A. Lapeyre <dlapeyre@mulberrytech.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:04:54 -0800 (PST)
- To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
- cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
> identifiers work.
>
> To answer the question someone posed: No, I, for one, did not use SGML
> public identifiers before the advent of the SGML Open catalogue, because
> no two systems I had resolved them in the same way.
Very true, and they were a pain. But I used them extensively. If they
got resolved, I tried not to worry (other than once, per setup, per
sofdtware package, per system) how. My point is even that was better
than nothing!
>
> I think FPIs are a Good Thing, and I'd like to see them in XML. Like
> Tim and some others, I went into this process assuming FPIs and SGML
> Open catalogs would clearly be part of the spec. But FPIs are, I think,
> not Absolutely Essentia. But one thing seems clear to me: if we have
>them, we
> need to specify how to handle them. If we don't, we are giving up
> without reason on the goal of interoperability and complete explicit
> definition of the language.
1) Yes, FPIs are a Good Thing, for me and for many of my clients.
Yes, I used them even before SGML Open.
2) Yes, I would like a full spec for handling them as part of XML, but
the consensus seems to be against that.
3) Yes, the Web requires URLs just now.
4) So, yes I will accept the "Magic Cookie" approach. It isn't good.
But it gives me a hook. Yes, this is a compromise, and not one I like.
But is this better than nothing? Yes, it is.
--Debbie Lapeyre
Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 13:04:47 UTC