- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:14:39 -0600
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
[Paul Prescod] > The Web has it's own ways to identify objects: let's use them (URLs now, URIs later). Once XML is a success, then we can improve the Web based on our experiences in "standard" SGML implementations. That doesn't always work. Legacy builds it's own momentum and the fait accompli becomes the rule of practice. If the FPI provides capabilities which XML users need, must have, then now is exactly the time to discuss it because it will be very difficult to introduce later. The Sounds Good Maybe Later (SGML) approach has consistently failed in the past. > I think Tim Bray's a) b) and c) points are great and should be used as an acid test > for discussions. Can XML be work without FPI? Yes. Then, because they are not > easily implementable, let's move on and define some linking syntax. I think the Web starts with the URL. The URN has a lot of work behind it. So do FPIs and credible members of the list are asking for it per Jon's instructions to open the issue now. No, let's not descend into long and circular debates, but let's list the requirements, make sure we can do without the FPI if we think it is indeed to hard to implement or will not be supported by a system component that even if hard to build, is only built once, or provided by a system vendor (e.g, is in the tool kit that comes from the platform vendor like MFC objects or Active-X/OLE objects). Tim's points are great, but other than keeping up on the track of system requirements vs document management theory, we still must pursue the FPI until we know that we can safely punt. len bullard
Received on Friday, 29 November 1996 11:14:09 UTC