[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:10:58 -0400
At 03:20 PM 7/11/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> Yes. So far I understand but am not sure how this was
>> better than FPIs plus system IDs. Had we removed the
>> coincidental protocol/namesystem morphs, we would have
>> exactly the same systems, yes?
>
>Yes, but the existence of a standardized name resolution system,
>even if it doesn't do the whole job, is still tremendous leverage:
>it makes simple cases simple, even if difficult cases are no better
>than before. Much like XML vis-a-vis full SGML.
Are URIs a 'standardized name resolution system'?
It sure doesn't feel like it to me. At best, it seems to be a syntax with
a deliberately vague description of what that syntax should be used to
identify.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
