Re: Comments on latest draft

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Rob Lugt scripsit:

> 1)  I was interested to know what the motivation was for the rewrite catalog
> entries.  While I can see clear merits for the proposal, the minutes do not
> give any background.  Was the prime motivation for this proposal to create a
> method for dealing with mirror sites containing lots of DTDs, or was it
> intended as a way of dealing with SAX processors that absolutize URIs before
> handing them over to the EntityResolver?

The original idea was to avoid having to create separate catalog entries
for every possible fragment id.  You can use rewriteURI to map just the
non-fragment part.  But the mirror site use case was discussed too.

> 4)  For the rewriteSystem element, is the systemIdStart string intended to
> be compared with the [%-escaped?] system identifier from the xml document
> being processed, or should it be compared to the system identifier after it
> has been absolutized, just like you get from a SAX Entity Resolver
> interface?  (reference to our question (1)). It's important that we know the
> committee's intention on this one.

I think this isn't nailed down yet.

> 5) 'rewrite' entries just return a string.  I believe you expect the xml
> processor to de-reference this string instead of the original system
> identifier, but within the same context as the original system identifier.
> In other words, relative URIs returned from 'rewrite' entries will be
> resolved relative to the document entity that contained the original system
> identifier.  Is this the intention?

This too needs to be nailed down.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter