Re: agenda for ER teleconference 20001211

[Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>]

At 11:19 2000 12 11 -0800, Lauren Wood wrote:
>Main discussion topic: the first proposal, based on John Cowan's 
>XCatalog, to be found at 
>http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/XCatalog.html
>
>discussion points:
>0) lower case vs camel case vs hyphens vs upper case
>1) proposal to accept John's XCatalog as a starting point

I guess I'm not positive what this means in reality.
We could accept anything as a starting point and then
make lots of changes.  In fact, several changes are
listed below.  

We have already agreed (in our charter) to use TR9401
as a *logical* (though not syntactic) starting point, 
and I assume we aren't changing that decision.  

I'd rather not say that XML Catalog is our "status quo" 
if that prejudices certain decisions such as those already 
listed below.  And if you're willing to change the names
of things, then saying we're starting with XML Catalog
is fairly vacuous.  But I agree it's useful to start with
some generic agreement.  So how is this for statements
that we can take as starters:

- we will express a subset of TR9401 in XML such that each
  catalog entry is an element and the entry contents are
  expressed as attribute values (this does not exclude us
  from also expressing other things that are not in TR9401)

- the first cut of the TR9401 entry types that we will express 
  consists of:  PUBLIC, SYSTEM, DELEGATE, CATALOG, BASE, and
  some extension mechanism.
  (I give that list because that is what XML Catalog does;
  I know we've talked about adding others.)

Not counting names--almost all of which we appear to have
listed as issues anyway--that basically captures what
XML Catalog does without prejudicing the open issues.
Can we accept that as our "status quo" model from which
to move forward?

>2) proposal to drop <base> in favour of xml:base
>3) proposal to rename <map> to <public>
>4) proposal to rename <remap> to <system>
>5) a) names for the attributes, e.g., PublicId and HRef - should 
>these be the same for all or most elements?
>b) what should the names be, if they are all the same?
>6) element type name for the imported/included/chained catalog

Another issue:  I note that XML Catalog doesn't require a
document element for the catalog which means an "XML Catalog"
catalog needn't be well-formed XML.  What do we want to do
about this for the catalog we are defining?

paul