Re: Comments on XML Catalogs specification

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ Rob Lugt <roblugt@elcel.com> was heard to say:
| It appears that there is a contradiction in the 2001-05-7 draft of the "XML
| Catalog" specification.  In the section titled "External Identifier
| Entries", towards the end, the "order of specificity of match...." section
| describes the order of specificity as
| 1) system
| 2) public
| 3) delegateSystem
| 4) delegatePublic

That list is not intended to be in any order of specificity, it's just
a list of the relevant entries. I've turned it into a bulletted list
to make this clearer.

| This seems to be in contradiction to the section titled "Catalog Resolution
| Semantics" later in the document which describes the order as [my numbers]
| 1) system
| 2) delegateSystem
| 3) public
| 4) delegatePublic

That's the proper order.

| Perhaps you would consider the use of hierarchical section numbers in the
| next draft as this would make commenting on the specification easier.

Yes. I've done that now. I had been following the historical precedent
in OASIS technical reports of not using section numbers. But that
makes no sense, so I'll stop :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | Our life gets as complicated as a comedy as it
XML Standards Engineer | goes on, but the complications get gradually
Technology Dev. Group  | resolved: see that the curtain comes down on a
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | good denouement.--Graci\'an

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: entity-resolution-comment-request@lists.oasis-open.org