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

Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 03:48:52 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002170237190.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
> > 
> >     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
> >     "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/1999/WD-xhtml-basic-19991125"
> 
> I find that acceptable, though I'd like confirmation that you're
> agreeing to remove the bit about modifying the system identifier
> "as appropriate".

That's a differemt issue.  The PUBLIC/SYSTEM distinction - or lack
thereof - had to do with naming/addressing/identifying/locating/
whateverifying a declaration subset as an entity (see the subject of
this thread).  The syntactic details of a doctype declaration are
another issue, and, as I've already argued at length, pretty much
irrelevant anyway.  The real conformance requirement has to do with
the effective (contents of the) DTD, not the form of the doctype
declaration.  *That* longstanding bogosity really needs to go.

> It's the "demonstrably useful" bit that I question. I'd really
> appreciate pointers to evidence of that.

On the web?  You must be joking:)  For Netploder, it doesn't matter,
and never will.  Prior use of and experience with *both* PUBLIC and
SYSTEM, not to mention catalogs, is almost exclusively off-web, so the
best you're likely to find is anecdotal evidence.  (But you knew that
already, didn't you?)  

The thread 'B.9 Formal system, public identifiers" during The Great
Triage may help:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1996Oct/subject.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1996Oct/0328.html

> FPIs are just baggage, as far as I can tell.

Actually, SYSTEM identifiers are baggage.  They exist at all in SGML
(hence XML) only because ISO 8879 forgot catalogs (the "clean"
solution from the SGML pov.)  The whole business of identifying
external entities is a kludge.

> But when making up a new name for something, I can't see
> any reason why make up two of them.

You make up a name and supply an address.

> > What more do you require?
> 
> I require nothing more. My critical objection was with
> the stuff about the system identifier being modifyable.

What does this mean?  That you want the system identifier to function
as a name?  Double duty bites.

> I think it's worth a considerable amount of time and energy, if it
> saves us from ever revisiting this question again. But perhaps
> that's not feasible...

You/W3C chose a bad timeline.  PUBLIC-yes-or-no is an issue (if at
all) for the next rev of the XML spec.  Too late for XHTML 1.

> As with anybody else, the WG's obligation to me is to
> 	-- convince me to withdraw
> 	-- accept my suggestion, or
> 	-- escalate the issue

I read this and paused.  I got up and took a walk.  By the time I sat
down again, it was clear that you have no idea - absolutely none
whatsoever - how utterly *outrageous* this is.  You may gauge the
extent of the travesty by considering this: no extortionist could
ever find a more succinct statement of his, uh, proposition.  But
you're not an extortionist, you're just oblivious.  You actually
*believe* that you just said something reasonable.  You find nothing
wrong in holding *their* judgment hostage to *your* leave to remain
unconvinced.    

Get off that horse, please, Mr. Immaculate.

[no point reading the rest right now.  sheesh.]
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 03:25:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT