[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Issue: do we map to URIs or URI References?
At 13:16 2001 06 06 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: >As part of my general cleanup to the document, I need to tackle >carefully the issue of what we map to and from. My first inclination >was to say that we map from external identifiers and URIs to URI >references. > >However, after further consideration, I'm not sure that's right. >I think we map URIs to URIs, not URI references. > >In other words, I think these should be non-conformant: > > <system systemId="http://example.com/foo" > uri="http://example.com/bar#xyz"/> > > <uri name="http://example.com/someResource" > uri="http://example.com/somewhereElse?id=3"/> > >My reasoning is that an application might very well strip off a >fragment identifier, grab a resource (going through a catalog) and >then search for the fragment identifier inside that resource. Getting >back a resource with a fragment identifier from the catalog would be >confusing at best and broken at worst. That app is broken. We've already decided we don't absolutize the sysid before doing a catalog lookup. The string that is given as a sysid is a string, nothing else, and that string needs to be looked up in the catalog. Anything "fancier" is going to be problematic. For example, why shouldn't I want to do: <system systemId="foo#bar" uri="http://example.com/bar"/> <system systemId="foo#baz" uri="http://example.com/baz"/> paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC