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

Re: URL better than FPI

From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:02:07 -0500 (EST)
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.1000221105458.14432B-100000@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, David Carlisle wrote:

> But that does not mean that that goal was necessarily achieved.

Fair enough, but if the W3C start producing specs that are XML and not
SGML, then they will lose me as a consumer of their specs. This is
especially true in light of what appendix C says.
 
> So, from that list, where do I find any rules about naming schemes for
> public identifiers?
> 
> It seems to me the only relevant data is:
> 
> <prod id="NT-PubidLiteral"><lhs>PubidLiteral</lhs>....

As I'm sure you know, satisfiying the sytacital requirement doesn't make
your doucment complient.  Semantics must also be satified.  Unfortunately
there is no definition of what a Public Idenifer is in XML.

Looking at the copy of xml.dcl on my computer, it says

FORMAL NO

So, Arjun, does this mean that anything goes for PUBLIC identifiers?

-- 
Russell O'Connor                           roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
       <http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/>
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 11:02:11 GMT

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