[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Michael Rossi <mrossi@crusher.jcals.csc.com>
- To: xml-dev <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:01:17 -0400
Paul Grosso wrote:
>
> At 13:47 2000 04 17 +0100, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >
> >Isn't this something of a problem? Doesn't the usefulness of
> >a PI/Catalog mechanism also apply in this case?
>
> I'm not sure what PIs have to do with this discussion.
Hi Paul :-). I'm sure she meant Public Identifiers (PIs), not Processing
Instructions (PIs). I used to try to get around this by using FPI for the
former, but they're not always "Formal" - arghh! Maybe we could use FPI
(Formal Public Identifier) and IPI (Informal Public Identifier), to stay
clear of PI (Processing Instruction).
Did I just say that? :-)
Michael A. Rossi
mailto:mrossi@csc.com
856-983-4400 x4911
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
