- From: <streich@austin.sar.slb.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 96 16:56:07 CDT
- To: jjc@jclark.com
- Cc: tbray@textuality.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> At 13:49 15/10/96 CDT, streich@austin.sar.slb.com wrote: > >> At 11:14 15/10/96 -0700, Tim Bray wrote: > >> > >> >I'd still like to keep at least a subset > >> >of the nice clean FSI syntax. > >> > >> What is the functionality you want from FSIs that you can't get from URLs? > > > >At least better opportunities for indirection. > > How do FSIs offer this? What makes you think URLs can't offer indirection? I didn't say that URLs don't offer indirection, only that there are better opportunities with FSIs. With an FSI, I can add my own storage object handler to pull the doc out of a DMS, for example. With a URL, I would have to go through a gateway to accomplish the same purpose. If you've ever had a key gateway crash because the process table overflowed, you understand my reluctance to be cornered into this. bob
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 17:56:37 UTC