RE: Namespace or document gloss?

[Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>]

Paul Grosso wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote,
> > I don't think that's the right way to go. By hardwiring
> > references to associated resources into the document instance
> > itself you make it impossible to reuse an existing doc with a
> > different collection of resources without modifying the doc, 
> > or using some XML processor specific override mechanism (eg. 
> > a SAX entity resolver).
>
> There is a fallacy somewhere here (and I don't mean to pick on
> Miles, but his comment above reminds me that I've seen this 
> elsewhere too).  If we are talking about standardizing 
> something  in the belief that doing so is a solution to 
> anything, then how can we suggest that an entity resolver--as 
> already standardized by TR9401 [1], as XML-ized in Cowan's XML 
> Catalog [2], as implemented in various places including 
> publicly available code [3], and as being re-standardized in 
> the OASIS ER TC [4]--is somehow inappropriately "XML processor 
> specific."

I think we're talking at cross purposes. My fault for not being 
more careful with my spelling: what I meant was 'eg. a SAX 
EntityResolver'. And, on the contrary, I think that TR9401 and 
John Cowans XMLCatalog look very promising ... tho' I'm not yet 
convinced they can do the whole job (where, for me, the whole job 
includes controlled, authorized, substitution and distributed as 
well as local management).

The difference between the entity resolver you're talking about
and a SAX EntityResolver is quite straightforward: the former
has well defined, documented semantics; the latter is simply
a programming API, implementations of which are (by design)
both infinitely varied and completely opaque.

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@interx.com                         http://www.interx.com/