W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:04:38 -0500
Message-Id: <200005181455.KAA1932061@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
At 10:24 AM 2000-05-18 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>Which is to say, there needs to be substantial independence between the way
>>names and types are managed and the way that parts and wholes of instances
>>are managed.  The relative URL convention is indeed tied to existing
>>virtual-packaging practices which leave web documents with embedded
>>dependencies on addressing relationships between themselves and the peers
>>they depend on.
>Er - okay.  We use relative URLs to point to images, DTDs, included
>entities, etc. I don't think that's packaging, unless the document itself
>is considered its own package.

The definition of packaging I am using is the creation of portable

Using relative URI bindings between documents in a local address subtree in
effect creates a portable super-document.  Because it performs this central
function of packaging I termed it "virtual packaging."  

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 10:54:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC