/ Paul Grosso <> was heard to say:
| At 14:03 2000 11 16 -0800, Terry Allen wrote:
| >Paul wrote:
| >| But URI is orthogonal to PUBLIC, SYSTEM, etc., and it going to be
| >| a mess. I don't want to go there.
| >
| >Okay. We do need URI>URI mapping, though. Let's imagine it
| >happens through (some piece of some processor) consulting another
| >map. (If anyone wants references to previous URN-WG work on
| >such maps, let me know.)
|
| Careful that you don't mix layers. Without getting into the
| discussion of whether URI>URI mapping is good or bad, it is
| not part of XML entity management and does not belong mixed
| in with an entity management catalog.
(I can play both sides of this issue, just watch me :-)
While it would be easy and convenient to constrain our work only to
the narrow cases that arise from entity management in XML (which in
turn are a subset of the cases that arise in SGML), I'm not sure we're
going to do our community a lot of good if we take that narrow a view.
It seems likely that not-to-distant XML systems will have no remains
of DTD syntax at all. We need to provide a little more support for
those systems.
Just as traditional entity management has classes of identifiers (what
Paul calls functional classes, I think), XML systems have classes of
identifiers. The classes that spring to mind for XML are
SYSTEM
PUBLIC
NAMESPACE
SCHEMALOC
STYLESHEET
INCLUDE
If we provide URI/URI mappings for these classes, I think we'll be
near the 80/20 point. (INCLUDE, btw, is for things like <xsl:include>,
<xsd:include>, and <xml:include>. But if we decided that those were
SYSTEM identifiers, I could live with that, too.)
| >What piece of what processor would we like it to be, and should
| >the mapping be done before or after the xmlcat is consulted,
| >or both? and should the two items (URI map and xmlcat) be
| >consulted by the XML processor or by some new, specialized
| >processor that feeds its results into the XML processor?
| >
| >or something else?
For the functional classes that we identify, I think the xmlcat
processor should be consulted. For application-specific purposes, I
think a specialized xmlcat processor should be used, one that
recognizes your extensions to the xmlcat.
Terry, you're going to hate this :-), but I suggest that
application-specific mappings should occur in the xmlcat in a
different namespace.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
| He who seeks happiness for himself by
XML Technology Center | making others unhappy is bound in the
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | chains of hate and from those he cannot be
| free.--The Dhammapada
