OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

entity-resolution message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: Proposal for XML syntax for catalogs

At 18:13 2001 01 08 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
>Following the 8 Jan 2001 decisions, here is a sample of the syntax as
>I understand it.
><catalog override="yes">
>  <public publicId="xxx" uri="yyy"/>
>  <system systemId="xxx" uri="yyy"/>
>  <group override="no" xml:base="absURI">
>    <delegate publicIdStartString="xxx" catalog="yyy"/>
>    <public publicId="zzz" uri="yyy"/>
>  </group>
>  <nextCatalog catalog="yyy"/>

This matches what I understand.  Now some comments just to make
sure we're all on the same page.

TR9401 says:
  The BASE keyword specifies that relative storage object identifiers (SOIs)
  in the right hand side of entries following this entry in the current
  catalog entry file should be resolved relative to the storage object
  identifier of this BASE entry.

That would apply equally to the SOI in CATALOG and DELEGATE entries.
Therefore, I assume we plan to do likewise.  Using Norm's example,
that means that, within the group with xml:base="absURI", both the 
delegated-to catalog and the public id's uri are relative to absURI.
I think this is as it should be, but I wanted to point it out to make
sure we all have the same understanding.

I'd also point out that, though Norm's example used a value of "absURI"
for xml:base, the value of xml:base needn't be an absolute URI.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC