- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:49:59 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Al, A very nicely laid out statement of XML's pickle. Al Gilman wrote: > end-to-end, it can and should be solved, the URI community should be > supporting the investigation of avenues of relief. We can't just blow this > off. Agreed. > recover..." References to schemas where the correct processing of the > current document instance is contingent on successful processing of the > cited schema is another whole kettle of fish. It is a normative reference, My questions (and I have not been following the XML development discussions, so please bear with me) are: Can you distinguish between these normative/non-normative references within XML (either through the tags, or specific contexts)? Are you really trying to say "I know this reference indicates an object that contains valid XML", or are you expressing a relationship between the current document and the one referenced? For example, "it was valid XML last time I checked". I.e., getting back to what Dan Laliberte was mentioning. > It is an open question as to whether this problem should be solved in the > definition of a URI Saying "no" to this is not a lack of willingness to understand the problem XML is facing, nor is it an assertion that no other applications have encountered the same issue. It's just that URIs have been defined & used by a multitude of applications (and lower layer services) that will not support changes/restrictions in the definition of URIs. > XML is indeed under a constraint to use "a URI, which has to be able to be > any old URI" to refer to the schema the more restrictive terms of reference > have to come from the URI and not the XML. But that is not necessarily a What's less possible: adding syntax to an XML reference to indicate whether it is "normative", or changing the way references MUST (or SHOULD) be handled, to check some alternate service as to the particulars of the referenced object? I.e., leave the identifier as just an identifier, but add semantics to handling it, as a step before traditional resolution? ("Look before you leap"). What such a service might be is, of course, an open question. Leslie. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary... ... or was that the other way around?" -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com -------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 22:50:03 UTC