Re: Client-side-resolved Indirection

At 09:42 AM 12/2/96 -0500, Ken Holman wrote:
>If this client-side-resolved indirection dereferences PUBLIC values to
>URLs or internet-resolved URN/URIs or absolute filename specifications
>or relative filename specifications or SQL queries or DMS copy-out
>procedures or JCL tape mount directives or even some future
>yet-to-be-determined-or-standardized query mechanism, the SGML files
>remain inviolable.
>
>Isn't this inviolability critically important to people who want to
>invest in their data for the long term?

That is a very clear statement of the potential benefit of public
identifiers. our documents can predict the eventual URN facilities of the
Web and take advantage of them as soon as they become available. In the
meantime we can use proprietary mechanisms, like SGML Open catalogs, PURLs,
handles, or whatever.

>Certainly the SGML Open scheme has its benefits and features, but I
>agreed with Debbie that the minimum is a simple string comparison.  If I
>choose to go beyond that with an SGML Open catalog, I can choose to do
>so without impacting on my marked up source.

Could you clarify here? Do you and Debbie wans a simple established
mechanism for name resolution, or just the option to put in the public
identifier (which is what I have been pushing for).

>Then again, need XML establish the "environment" in which XML PUBLIC
>identifers are dereferenced?  Is it in the scope of XML to go outside
>the syntax of the markup to specify any obligatory mechanism by which
>information in the markup is handled?

Well, URLs must be handled according to URL semantics so we *could* specify
a resolution semantic for public identifers. But I think that would put an
extra burden on implementors, risk XML's acceptance, and inappropriately
disqualify the URN effort before it got off of the ground.

 Paul Prescod

Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 10:32:29 UTC