W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: B.1 and B.2 results

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 09:54:51 BST
Message-Id: <12465.9610230854@grogan.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Well, I HAVE been listening, and although a bit impatient with the
testiness on both sides from time to time, think there is a
real point on both sides, and that by simply proceeding (and implicitly
ignoring David and Gavin) the ERB would be making a technical as well
as a strategic error.

In particular, I think Tim is at least misleading to say 'the
smokescreen about "it's the entity not the file" is just that'.

David's observation that "[Since] SGML has the general notion of an
entity manager, the notion of an entity header on the storage object
fits right into the SGML model" seems to me to be exactly right.  Step
back a minute and think what you expect the command line argument to a
Unix-based XML tool to be -- a filename?  a filename or a URL?  a
filename or a URL or an FPI?  Well obviously, it's going to be,
implicitly or explicitly, just as for SP-based applications already, an SGML
Open entity specifier, that is, any of the above.  Which means that
rudimentary entity access management is a necessary part of any XML
application, and for entities of type OSFILE that means finding the
header information on the front thereof.  Is that really so bad?

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 1996 04:55:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC