At 13:09 2000 11 16 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>Norman Walsh wrote:
>> 3. I think it will open the door to the question of how many different
>> sorts of URIs are there, and shouldn't I be able to map them all
>> differently?
>>
>> URI "uri" "uri"
>> NAMESPACE "uri" "uri"
>> STYLESHEET "uri" "uri"
>> SCHEMALOC "uri" "uri"
>> ...
>>
>> And I don't know if I want to go there or not. I want to keep this
>> simple and as close to TR9401 as is practical.
>
>I do think that if we are introducing general URI-URI rewriting, we do
>have to go here, although the syntax URI NAMESPACE "uri" "uri" might be
>better. (I think generalized 9401 parsers can parse that even if
>they don't understand it, right?)
>
>That would leave URI for all other URIs, ones that are application-specific.
>
>Of course, we could dispense with this by not doing generalized
>URI-URI rewriting, but only rewriting system ids and public ids.
>Maybe not as universal, but easier to delimit.
Right, I would not generalize URI-URI rewriting, but keep the
catalog rewriting to public, system, and whatever other functional
area on which we have consensus (I don't feel the strong need for
any, but I might be able to live with some given some convincing
arguments). Let's not make the mistake some W3C XML-related specs
have made and over-complicate our first pass. I'd like to see us
come up with something which is pretty much just TR9401. If we
get agreement and implementations, and experience shows there is
a widespread need for more, then we can later consider adding them.
paul
