[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: system IDs and URIs
On 17 May 2001, John Cowan wrote: > 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. OTOH, we do have two different types of urn mappings as a subset of URI mappings, one of which happens when it starts with urn:publicid, and the other for every other URN, which of course is a subset of URIs; why is that not confusing if having both system and URI mappings is? Lauren
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC