- From: Joe English <jenglish@crl.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:11:07 -0800
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > Hmm, seems I was right - we do *not* have a consensus on this one. > > The argument in favor of SYSTEM-first is that this is apt to > be quicker and cheaper (particularly if you assume that a PUBLIC id > usually generates a SYSTEM id). That's not what I assumed. I figured that -- for Web applications anyway -- the most sensible resolution strategy for <!ENTITY FOO PUBLIC "myname" "oneofmyaddresses"> would be something like: 1) See if there's a local catalog entry for the PUBLIC identifier "myname". If so, use it. 2) Otherwise, try to resolve the SYSTEM identifier "oneofmyaddresses" (probably a URL). 3) If this fails, or no SYSTEM ID is supplied, attempt strategy [B] (see below). 4) If this fails, tell the user "Sorry, can't resolve entity FOO. Please try to dig up the entity with PUBLIC ID "myname", add it to your local catalog, and try again." Strategy [B] would initially be a stub routine that always fails. If and when the URN group and/or SGML Open and/or the W3C SGML ERB hammers out the details of how to do automatic FPI/URN resolution, it would do an indirect PUBLIC ID -> SYSTEM ID mapping based on whatever strategy they/we finally come up with. (But quite frankly, I don't expect to see this happening in my lifetime.) I suspect that the heuristic in step (4) would be effective in many cases, since most people who currently publish SGML on the Web tend to put a "Click _here_ to download the DTD and supporting entity sets" link somewhere on their entry page; XML publishers would likely do the same (until of course the URN group/u.s.w./... comes up with a more reliable mechanism, as above), and failing that, there's always comp.text.sgml, Robin Cover's bibliography, InfoSeek, e-mail to webmaster@sun.com asking "Could you send me a copy of '-//SUNSOFT//DTD Yabba Dabba Doo//EN'? I can't find it on your Web page", whatever. In other words, basically the same way public PUBLIC identifiers are used today; I'd be happy with that. But I digress: the point is, I assume that PUBLIC identifier resolution will in fact be *cheaper* than SYSTEM identifier resolution, since typically (for XML anyway) the former will only involve a local catalog lookup whereas the latter will involve a network transaction. --Joe English jenglish@crl.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 1997 10:16:38 UTC