Re: Public Identifiers, and CATALOGS

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> Of course with careful client-side maintenance this restriction can be
> relaxed, but the likelihood of inexpert users breaking the integrity is
> considerable.  A (?the) primary role of PUBLIC is thus to act as an integrity
> check at the client side, even if it's not used for resolution.

The word "manifest" was used earlier and that if nothing else is 
worth the trouble.  In our system where we depend on non-SGML 
support files (stylesheets, wordlists, frame files, etc.), the 
management and transmission of the multiple files has been and 
is a problem unless one is careful.  It requires knowledge of the 
system and attention when packing up a document and moving it. 
So, where a catalog preserves these relationships in a system 
neutral form, it is a considerable help.

I think anyone who believes they can use XML or SGML without 
some management help from tools or the language is being very 
optimistic.  I agree that some classes of simple well-formed 
documents will stand on their own just as HTML does now without 
stylesheets, but to get the advantages we assume the responsibilities.
This is why I replied to Paul Prescod on CTS that I don't think 
the rush to XML will be fast:  inertia is dependable.  On the 
other hand, where it solves problems of complex document 
production, validation, management and persistence, it will be 
adopted just as SGML has been where these same problems exist.

Steve Newcomb has it right:  keep the requirements up front.  They 
should be user requirements, not just, Web system requirements.
But bear in mind, not one without the other.  My problem with 
Jon's catechism is that it does not seem to be both.