W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 05:24:11 -0500
Message-ID: <010001bf7867$f92cf160$14e76ed1@prioritynetworks.net>
To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Arjun Ray" <aray@q2.net>, <www-html@w3.org>
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> I do not propose to foreclose any options. Members of the Web Community
> are free to use FPIs if they find them to be valuable. But you have
> not made any argument (other than by assertion) as to what value
> W3C would derive from the use of an FPI to identify the XHTML Basic DTD.

I would argue that:

FPI's have been used for a long time. The SGML community (for the most
part), and by extension the HTML community find them useful, uses them and
understands them.

It is thus not up to the XHTML working group to show why something that is
on the face of it  useful, is useful, it is up to Dan to show why it is NOT
useful, something IMO that he (Dan) has failed to do.

I agree that every public comment needs to be addressed, but If we were to
set the precedent that every comment has to be proven beyond reasonal doubt
to be of no value (even when they originate from such a respectable source
as Dan), then we are opening a can of worms.

For heavens sake! Could I make up a specious argument that the uniqueness of
ID's is open to question and have the whole WG get their "knickers in a

I maintain that it is up to the originator of thesis that casts doubt on an
established precedent to show why it should be changed.

Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2000 05:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:53 UTC