Re: system IDs and URIs

[Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>]

At 12:21 2001 05 17 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Lauren Wood wrote:
>
>> To me, the main reason for having generic URIs is to allow mapping 
>> of items such as stylesheets from the stylesheet PI, which isn't 
>> defined as a system identifier, and potentially other URIs which 
>> also aren't defined as system identifiers. I would not like to lose 
>> this ability.
>
>Absolutely.  What I wanted to investigate was not eliminating generic
>URIs, but subsuming system ids under generic URIs.
>
>In particular, is there any merit to allowing a URI to be mapped
>one way when it is a system identifier and another way when it is
>being used for something else?  We rejected making such a capability
>general, with separate mappings for stylesheets, XML Schemas,
>RDF Schemas, etc. etc.  Why should system identifiers get their
>own private mapping?
>
>I don't think that 9401 compatibility is a sufficient argument,
>because 9401 catalogs don't allow mapping any URIs that aren't
>system identifiers.
>
>Norm says it would confuse users to have only one type of URI
>processing.  Me, I think it would confuse users to have two different
>types.

I agree with Norm.  I want to know that only things labeled
SYSTEM identifiers in XML are going to match SYSTEM entries
in my catalog, and only other URIs not labeled SYSTEM identifiers
are going to match URI entries.

paul


paul