[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: retrieving vs. dereferencing
Lauren Wood wrote: > XML 1.0 second edition changed that to "The SystemLiteral is called the > entity's system identifier. It is a URI reference (as defined in [IETF RFC > 2396], updated by [IETF RFC 2732]), meant to be dereferenced to obtain input > for the XML processor to construct the entity's replacement text." I think we were mainly concerned to get the correct term "URI reference" rather than "URI" in there, and to get rid of the "may". > The definition of derefencing seems to be rather fuzzy - is it fuzzy enough > for us to be allowed to have a catalog processor in there? The URI RFC > doesn't seem to allow for any catalog processor that I could see in its > definition of the URI reference. No problem, I think. RFC 2396, section 1.2, says: # Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not # imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named # protocol. Gateways, proxies, caches, and name resolution services # might be used to access some resources, independent of the protocol # of their origin, and the resolution of some URL may require the use # of more than one protocol (e.g., both DNS and HTTP are typically used # to access an "http" URL's resource when it can't be found in a local # cache). I interpret our catalogs as "name resolution services" within the meaning of this paragraph. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC