Re: XML catalog draft

murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim) wrote:

> I really have no problem at all with your accurate statement of the need
> for a resolution mechanism. But I must ask the question 'What is XML
> _for_?' in the same way you do, as we aren't trying to solve all the
> world's problems here, simply come up with a simplified subset of SGML
> called XML. 

See the list activity page, http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/Activity.
We're trying to make a subset of SGML that's especially suitable for use
on the Internet.

Yes, entity resolution _is_ needed, and yes, I do believe it's in scope.
The market won't solve it.  Individual companies will solve it in
incompatible ways.

> This isn't a matter of passing the buck; it's simply outside the mandate for
> XML.

I believe it is firmly within our mandate.  What good is SGML on the Internet
if the spec doesn't say how you use it on the Internet??

Jon, you there?  What do you think?

I don't care if non-Internet uses of XML don't have to include any way
of doing http (for example) -- I do care if two http-based XML systems
can't share the same files because they have incompatible rules for looking
up FPIs and mapping to SYSTEM IDs.