- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:19:18 -0600
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
James Clark wrote: > The spec could just say something like: > > In addition to a system literal an external identifier may include a public > identifier. A system may use the public identifier to try to generate an > alternative URL. If a system is unable to do so, it must use the URL > specified in the system literal. > > In a future version, when we have a resolution mechanism, we could maybe > allow omission of the system identifier when there's a public identifier. > > The question is: do those who have been clamouring for public ids think this > is better than no public ids at all? Yes. At least in this case, should my customer wish to implement their own registry and resolution services, they do it based on a common basis. That is considerably better than the alternative in which they might create their own protocol. (No, that is not a joke; it was proposed.) len bullard lockheed martin
Received on Monday, 31 March 1997 10:30:38 UTC