[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses

• To: 'Patrick Stickler' <patrick.stickler@n...>, ext Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>, ext Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:46:22 -0600

So URNs do exist?  And reinvention is part of "The Web"?

Ok.  Why not use the OASIS SGML Catalog instead of 
"something similar"?  It appears that one doesn't 
need RDDL or DDDS.

"The Web" doesn't exist.  Parts and assemblies exist. 
The right to choose is what is in doubt and all for 
the sake of a "global namespace" resolver.

But we still have the issue and always will 
have the issue that what is in the PUBLIC id 
is either the address or the information, and 
if the information, is it extensible information.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@n...]

On 2002-02-20 16:32, "ext Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
wrote:

> And that brings one back round to the concept of the
> PUBLIC id.  Why shouldn't PUBLIC ids be used in
> namespace name values?

You can use urn:publicid:

> Because they aren't resolvable
> without the catalog.

There's no doubt that we need name to location mapping,
similar to SGML Catalogs -- and that is what RDDL can
offer in the short term and DDDS and similar technologies
in the long term, with additional knowledge about the
resources provided by SW solutions.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Next by Date: Re: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Next by thread: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread