Re: The furore over PUBLIC
James Clark wrote:
> 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?
Yes. At least in this case, should my customer wish to implement their
own registry and resolution services, they do it based on a common
That is considerably better than the alternative in which they might
create their own protocol. (No, that is not a joke; it was proposed.)