W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: XML catalog draft

From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 16:15:28 -0500
Message-ID: <32FE3E70.617F@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> (2) FPIs are used, and any XML application that needs to can turn
>     the FPI into a system identifier and proceed.  (This is what
>     Paul Prescod is opposing.  I _think_ he wants all resolution methods
>     to be proprietary, so that we should not recommend one.)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't mind that there exists a non-proprietary 
method as long as there is also the ability to create proprietary methods. 
In fact I favour it. I think it would be good if we could agree on a 
default standardized method.

But don't think that the existence of PUBLIC in the grammar should be
tied to our figuring out a resolution mechanism for them. You and I
agree that XML documents can be interchanged without a well defined 
public identifier resolution mechanism (using system).

You seem to believe that leaving PUBLIC in the grammar without a 
resolution mechanism will inevitably lead to  interoperability, and 
I don't believe that. I think that it will just lead to people using 
public identifiers in prearranged systems and system identifiers on the 
Web. I believe that PUBLIC is useful without a well defined resolution 
mechanism, through pre-arranged conventions and systems, and you may 
not believe that.

Or, to put it another way: in the days before SOCAT, would it have been
better to have no public identifier mechanism at all? I certainly used
it before there was a well defined mechanism. Author/Editor, in particular
had/has a very powerful mapping format that does many things that SOCAT 
does not.

 Paul Prescod
Received on Sunday, 9 February 1997 16:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC