-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 / Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:28:44AM -0600, Paul Grosso wrote: |> You are correct, xsltproc is not in compliance with the XML Catalog spec. [...] | And I have said to the XML Catalog comitee that an URI Reference is | an URI-Reference and that having to distinguish arbitrarilly one done | from a DOCTYPE entry from one done from an xi:include href entry | doesn't make any sense to me, and that I would not support the distinction | in my software unless getting a meaningful reason to distinguish | those.
You are, of course, free to do anything you please. Committees of like-minded individuals gather together to produce specifications for many reasons: - - To allow greater interoperability between products and applications - - To increase market share by allowing products to compete on implementation - - To reduce the number of things that end-users have to know, increasing ease-of-use To name but a few. In the course of producing specifications, different points of view are presented, both within the committee and from the community at large. Some of those points of view are in conflict. Through discussion, debate, and persistence, effective committees eventually reach a consensus position. Often, that position varies from the position that different members of the committee (and the community at large) consider ideal but the benefit of the specification as a whole is seen as more important. In this particular case, the Entity Resolution TC discussed your objections at length. Eventually we reached the consensus opinion that system identifiers and URIs are not the same thing and that the distinction in the spec was valuable. I've served on lots of committees, I've argued lots of positions. Sometimes I've argued persuasively and seen issues resolved in ways that are consistent with my point of view. Sometimes I've argued less persuasively (or at least less successfully) and seen issues resolved in ways that are inconsistent with my point of view. C'est la vie. The whole process is a pointless waste of time if, at the end of the day, individuals or companies are going to produce implementations that match their own points of view rather than the consensus view of the published specifications. I am, to be frank, disappointed and frustrated that you've blown a great big hole in a smooth operation of XML Catalogs. The whole point was interoperability and you've $%#$@#ed that up. I think your action threatens the whole enterprise and it's deplorable. Be seeing you, norm - -- Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | More men become good through http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | practice than through Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | nature.--Democritus of Abdera -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQE9wEGkOyltUcwYWjsRAntmAJ9di42KhHQNTqXsi2jfoJqz0FrcSQCbB0OY wIZ0HlElQdSRvI+4bjcTshw= =pfv2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----