Re: Issue: do we map to URIs or URI References?

[Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>]

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