Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: XML Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:12:46 -0400
Paul Grosso wrote:
> I have not heard a convincing argument for not including OVERRIDE
> in your subset of TR9401. There are many TR9401 catalogs in use,
> implementing OVERRIDE is trivial, and users are used to using it.
> If you don't include it, then the existing catalogs--and users
> who write new catalogs based on their understanding of TR9401
> catalogs as they exist--will get subtlely different results with
> no warning because you would be ignoring the OVERRIDE NO entries.
I concede your points. I will add support for OVERRIDE YES/NO,
with standard semantics.
> I see your point. You want something like a PUBLIC-CATALOG entry
> type with the same semantics as the CATALOG entry type except
> additionally with the semantic "ignore if the external identifier
> has no public identifier." Note that the referenced catalog entry
> file could still have SYSTEM (and ENTITY and other) entry types, and
> if the catalog is ever processed, all those entry types are significant,
> it's just that no catalog referenced by a PUBLIC-CATALOG entry would
> be processed if the current external identifier being resolved has
> no public id.
More accurately, it would not be processed merely because of the
PUBLIC-CATALOG entry. If it were also referred to indirectly or
directly via a CATALOG entry, it would be processed.
> Note, you can't say "looking for" (or "not looking for") a public
> id, because you are never looking for a match to a public id per se.
> You are always looking for a match for the set of info that you have
> for the current external identifier, and that set of info includes
> one or more of (1) public id, (2) system id, (3) entity name.
Granted. But due to implementation restrictions in SAX, I never
have an entity name available: consequently, the NOTATION and ENTITY
entries are ignored.
> I think you'd also want the standard CATALOG entry type, therefore
> PUBLIC-CATALOG would be a new entry type. The standard CATALOG
> entry would address my "compelling example" as well as give
> compatibility with TR9401 catalogs.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)