[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ERB Decisions of March 26th



At 5:55 PM -0800 3/26/97, Jon Bosak wrote:
>[Dave Durand:]
>
>| Since some (Most?) of us who want PUBLIC IDs strongly feel that a
>| _mandated_ mechanism would be a serious mistake, this argument is a
>| non-argument.
>
>Where did the word "mandated" come from?
>
>Jon
From Tim:
| So in this draft, no public IDs.  It should be voted that *every person*
| on the No side would change their vote to Yes if there was an agreed-on
| resolution mechanism for PUBLIC identifiers.

We have catalogs, and we know the we will have URNs, so we have two
mechanisms, one implemented thanks to Norbert, who also did delegate (and
it didn't take him more than a few days to do, either).

So I assumed that the problem is that we haven't decided what mechanism XML
should _require_.

Otherwise the argument seems to be more hole than fabric...

And since a required mechanism is harmful, I feel like I have to start from
the beginning again, and return to the _resolution mechanism independent_
requirement, which is critical.

   Otherwise, I confess that I can't make out what the objection is. Not
that I agree with the objection that I perceive, but at least I thought
that I knew what it was.

  -- David

_________________________________________
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                    \__________________________



References: