Re: The furore over PUBLIC

Jon Bosak wrote:
> 
> [Len Bullard:]
> 
> | 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.
> 
> My intuition is telling me that there is some helpful distinction to
> be made here between an FPI that's needed to identify which DTD a
> document is supposed to conform to and a generic public identifier
> whose purpose is to fetch external entities, but I haven't been
> successful yet in getting a grip on it.

Yes, and perhaps that is at the root of this.  We may be wanting 
to *do* something different.  I need a way to identify links 
independent of the system location, but that is just indirection 
and perhaps not what the public ID achieves.
 
> Surely what we're thinking of when we specify a version of the DocBook
> DTD is only in the last resort an actual trip to the Davenport site to
> get a copy, but that always has to be the fallthrough or the citation
> is ultimately meaningless.

Yes.  It is my point that we may be confusing the *name* by which 
something is registered for the *process* and the process is what 
is wanted.
 
> | 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.
> 
> No, there's no legal requirement inherent in "-//Davenport//DTD
> DocBook V2.4//EN".  And no formal registration with an authority,
> either.  I think that you're on to something, but that's not it.

A legal requirement is what a contract can cite and a process 
or agency can enforce.  That is what I mean by that.  If two 
parties agree that the string you cite is a formal name for 
authoritative registration, it is the contractual agreement 
that makes it so.  Otherwise, a string is a string is a string.
 
> | 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!
> 
> The people who have to implement it are the browser vendors.  They're
> not buying a pig in a poke, and I can't say that I blame them.

Nor would I, but that is their decision to make.  Others are trying 
to write requirements and they are customers who do have a say in 
what is wanted.  The vendors can choose to sell that to them or not, 
and they can choose to find a vendor who will.  That IS how the 
market works.  Again, Don't Fear The Reaper, even if it is currently 
dominant in the reaping business.

len

Received on Monday, 31 March 1997 09:57:56 UTC