• To: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Subject: Re: Public Identifiers
• From: Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@e...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <87k7djlg1w.fsf@n...>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Norman Walsh wrote:

> | Are there any efforts to
> | formalize other semantics for the field, for example as a way of specifying
> | alternative resolution strategies for the system identifier?
> 
> Does it really make sense to put those resolution strategies in the
> document?

No, especially if they are prescriptive, in which case they probably belong
in a processing instruction. 

I'm thinking of anything that an application might need to know about the
nature of an entity, which is difficult to communicate in a URI. For
example: this entity exists in multiple content types, so if you wish, you
may specify one in the accept field of your HTTP request for the entity.
Or: this entity exists in multiple locales, so append an ISO locale code if
you wish, and the best possible match will be returned (in the manner of
Java property files). 

// Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Public Identifiers
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Statistical vs "semantic web" approaches to making sense of the Net
• Next by Date: Re: Statistical vs "semantic web" approaches to making senseof the Net
• Previous by thread: Re: Public Identifiers
• Next by thread: Re: Statistical vs "semantic web" approaches to making senseof the Net
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread