- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:34:46 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 10:51 AM 12/2/96, Terry Allen wrote:
>If the defined method of resolution is "resolve as URNs", which
>various systems may do variously but with the same results (unless
>some succeed and some fail), does that suffice for you? There
>will be many (possibly competing) methods of resolving URNs;
>your system (NOT your XML system, your dealing-with-the-Internet
>system) will have local preferences about how to use them; you
>solve the problem there for all applications that need to handle
>URNs. As a reader, I want that kind of independence; as a writer,
>I want to avoid having to touch my docs after I'm finished with
>them; as a publisher, I'm more or less where I am with ISBNs,
>except that the resolution mechanisms are still being constructed.
Hear hear. This is the correct way to proceed: we can point to URNs
now, and we are all ready for experimental deployment today, and
standardization tomorrow. And we don't have to revise XML based on the
availability of URN resolution, crippling, in the meantime, those people
who need and are willing to implement custom FPI resolution now.
--- David
_________________________________________
David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 16:28:42 UTC