[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Catalog Requirements
At 13:09 2000 11 16 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >Norman Walsh wrote: >> 3. I think it will open the door to the question of how many different >> sorts of URIs are there, and shouldn't I be able to map them all >> differently? >> >> URI "uri" "uri" >> NAMESPACE "uri" "uri" >> STYLESHEET "uri" "uri" >> SCHEMALOC "uri" "uri" >> ... >> >> And I don't know if I want to go there or not. I want to keep this >> simple and as close to TR9401 as is practical. > >I do think that if we are introducing general URI-URI rewriting, we do >have to go here, although the syntax URI NAMESPACE "uri" "uri" might be >better. (I think generalized 9401 parsers can parse that even if >they don't understand it, right?) > >That would leave URI for all other URIs, ones that are application-specific. > >Of course, we could dispense with this by not doing generalized >URI-URI rewriting, but only rewriting system ids and public ids. >Maybe not as universal, but easier to delimit. Right, I would not generalize URI-URI rewriting, but keep the catalog rewriting to public, system, and whatever other functional area on which we have consensus (I don't feel the strong need for any, but I might be able to live with some given some convincing arguments). Let's not make the mistake some W3C XML-related specs have made and over-complicate our first pass. I'd like to see us come up with something which is pretty much just TR9401. If we get agreement and implementations, and experience shows there is a widespread need for more, then we can later consider adding them. paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC