- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:52:10 -0500
- To: lex@www.copsol.com
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> The collective information about all the components necessary to > handle, process, identify, etc. this document--the meta-document--is > the first-class construct. The meta-document is the starting point. Fine. This is roughyl equivalent to the 2 MIME-SGML solutions, where one focused on the catalog as the meta-document, and the other focused on MIME structures. A meta-document is just a packing list, as is a catalog. Catalogs should only be used to identify peices in a given document, not for the basis for name resolution. >1. It is possible to define a known document type to encode such a > meta-document. This is not necessary but it would seem unlikely to > developed "yet-another-document-information-encoding" (YADIE). We already have MIME and catalogs. >2. The meta-document and its components could be encoded in one stream > such that a request is made for the meta document "stream" and > all information is shipped to the application. This does *not* > require that all components are packed into this stream. It only > requires that they be identified. Anyone familiar with the concept of > JAR files can see where this is coming from. Sounds like MIME to me.... >4. The need for "catalog location", "style-sheet location", etc. standards > goes away and gets replaced with a uniform mechanism for describing > component locations and relationships. Sure, instead of pulling the catalog in after accessing the instance, you pull in the instance after accessing the catalog. >I have attached a very simple DTD for such a meta-document. I wrote this >very quickly and it *doesn't* contain all the ideas that I have about this >subject but I wanted something concrete. Some people on this list know that I have little love for the SO catalog syntax, but that seems sufficient to me.
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 09:52:56 UTC