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

Re: URL better than FPI

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 05:22:55 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002220516360.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, David Carlisle wrote:

> > Yes, but there is no need to put the system address in a *document
> > instance* if the public identifier is there already.
> 
> But you mean no need in an ideal world. Since the XML spec
> mandates that you do this, you can't mean no need in XML.

Yes, you're right.  I meant s/is/would be/.

> I can easily imagine conforming XML parsers that ignore the public
> identifier if it is there and just use the system identifier, and
> will fail if the system identifier is an HTTP url and I'm using my
> laptop on the train. This is what I was refering to that you asked
> me to clarify

Thanks, I got it now:)

Using the system id has become a requirement under the XML spec, it
seems, and that's bad.

> To give a real example, I don't think xp supports either
> catalogues or caching of previously fetched files, so if I want to
> apply xsl stylesheets to xhtml documents using xp/xt They had
> better have a system id that points to a file on my local system.
> Under the suggested change to the XHTML draft such a file would no
> longer be conforming xhtml.

This is actually a nasty problem, only because the XML spec demands
not only a system id, but also that it be taken seriously.  This
amounts to saying that XML - and XHTML - documents can only be used
online.  I don't like this at all.


Arjun
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 04:56:12 GMT

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