Re: The furore over PUBLIC
Jon Bosak wrote:
> [Len Bullard:]
> | What about the case where the writer only wants to identify the type
> | and not the instance? They must point to the registry/process where
> | the type is resolved to an instance.
> My intuition is telling me that there is some helpful distinction to
> be made here between an FPI that's needed to identify which DTD a
> document is supposed to conform to and a generic public identifier
> whose purpose is to fetch external entities, but I haven't been
> successful yet in getting a grip on it.
Yes, and perhaps that is at the root of this. We may be wanting
to *do* something different. I need a way to identify links
independent of the system location, but that is just indirection
and perhaps not what the public ID achieves.
> Surely what we're thinking of when we specify a version of the DocBook
> DTD is only in the last resort an actual trip to the Davenport site to
> get a copy, but that always has to be the fallthrough or the citation
> is ultimately meaningless.
Yes. It is my point that we may be confusing the *name* by which
something is registered for the *process* and the process is what
> | I agree that a public id looks like a comment until one notes it is a
> | formal comment with a legal requirement to be a registered type.
> No, there's no legal requirement inherent in "-//Davenport//DTD
> DocBook V2.4//EN". And no formal registration with an authority,
> either. I think that you're on to something, but that's not it.
A legal requirement is what a contract can cite and a process
or agency can enforce. That is what I mean by that. If two
parties agree that the string you cite is a formal name for
authoritative registration, it is the contractual agreement
that makes it so. Otherwise, a string is a string is a string.
> | Using it without such registration makes it a less powerful formality.
> | Such formal registration also has domains; the registry server is the
> | domain server. A lookup table is a lookup table is a lookup table, so
> | I don't understand the problem here. It looks like another RFC for a
> | resolution service and if so, then those that want it have to
> | implement it to use it. Duh!
> The people who have to implement it are the browser vendors. They're
> not buying a pig in a poke, and I can't say that I blame them.
Nor would I, but that is their decision to make. Others are trying
to write requirements and they are customers who do have a say in
what is wanted. The vendors can choose to sell that to them or not,
and they can choose to find a vendor who will. That IS how the
market works. Again, Don't Fear The Reaper, even if it is currently
dominant in the reaping business.