Re: The furore over PUBLIC

At 00:47 30/03/97 +0000, Peter Flynn wrote:

>Is it too much to propose that an identifier must be 
>either          SYSTEM  "url"
>or              PUBLIC "fpi" "url"

This seems a reasonable compromise to me.  No interoperability is lost,
because there's always a URL that the system can use.  It adds very little
burden to implementers: they can just completely ignore the public
identifier if they want.

The spec could just say something like:

In addition to a system literal an external identifier may include a public
identifier.  A system may use the public identifier to try to generate an
alternative URL.  If a system is unable to do so, it must use the URL
specified in the system literal.

In a future version, when we have a resolution mechanism, we could maybe
allow omission of the system identifier when there's a public identifier.

The question is: do those who have been clamouring for public ids think this
is better than no public ids at all?