Re: The furore over PUBLIC

Jon Bosak wrote:
> 
> [Peter Flynn:]
> 
> | Is it too much to propose that an identifier must be
> |
> | either          SYSTEM  "url"
> | or              PUBLIC "fpi" "url"
> |
> | and leave it to the much-vaunted "market forces" to resolve the issue?
> 
> It is if you feel, as I do, that in the case where a public identifier
> is given, it always takes precedence over a URL.  If it's the other
> way around (the URL takes precedence), and a URL is always required,
> then the public id is just decoration; a special variety of comment,
> if you will.

What about the case where the writer only wants to identify the type 
and not the instance?  They must point to the registry/process where 
the type is resolved to an instance.  Sure, there are MIME types, 
but that is just one way to get it done, and I am not uncomfortable with
alternatives where needed.  For example, telling a community that 
they need to MIME type every potential form of IETM is not going 
to fly.  Too slow, and too exposed.

I agree that a public id looks like a comment until one notes it 
is a formal comment with a legal requirement to be a registered 
type.  Using it without such registration makes it a less powerful 
formality.  Such formal registration also has domains; the 
registry server is the domain server.  A lookup table is a lookup 
table is a lookup table, so I don't understand the problem here.
It looks like another RFC for a resolution service and if so, 
then those that want it have to implement it to use it.  Duh!

Is it the case that if we use public ids, we are offering a 
competitor to URNs and some fear that?

len

Received on Sunday, 30 March 1997 10:57:54 UTC