- From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:38:13 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 5:23 PM 2/7/97, lee@sq.com wrote: >Paul Prescod wrote: >> The proposal leaves the resolution mechanism up to the application as it >> should. > >No it shouldn't. >I want something that works. In the same way. Everywhere. >That is what we all need. Can we stop this right here (I know it's already too late). The idea of _names_ is that they do _not_ have to be resolved that same way everywhere. No _required_ resolution protocol. _Protocol_ _Independent_. This is the key. It means that a client can always arrange _some_ mechanism, and that names do not go stale. In exchange for these benefits, you must be free to change resolution mechanisms, and must accept that some names may become unresolvable by clients who do not know how to resolve them. >There is no point saying the market will produce lots of competing >mechanisms and the best one will win. They will all lose. This discussion went on for 4 years in the URN group, and was stopped by fiat -- if URNs fail, they will fail, but it won't hurt anyone if they do. Let's not waste 4 years on the issue here. I'm interested in you experience with catalog resolution, but I'll let this point stand alone. It is _the_ key point. -- 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 \__________________________
Received on Sunday, 9 February 1997 17:37:23 UTC