From server@amber.ora.com Sat Mar 9 00:30:21 1996 Received: from ruby.ora.com (ruby.ora.com [198.112.208.25]) by jasper.ora.com (8.6.13/8.6.11) with ESMTP id AAA26583 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:30:20 -0500 Received: from amber.ora.com (amber.ora.com [198.112.208.11]) by ruby.ora.com (8.6.13/8.6.11) with ESMTP id AAA29137; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:33:00 -0500 Received: (from server@localhost) by amber.ora.com (8.6.13/8.6.11) id TAA13178; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:01:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:01:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199603090001.QAA01016@ix9.ix.netcom.com> Errors-To: listown@online.ora.com Reply-To: lprice@ix.netcom.com Originator: davenport@online.ora.com Sender: davenport@online.ora.com Precedence: bulk From: "Lynne A. Price" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Davenport Feb/Mar '96 meeting notes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Davenport Group General Distribution List X-Comment: To unsubscribe send message to listproc@online.ora.com "unsubscribe davenport" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mime-Version: 1.0 At 05:45 PM 3/5/96 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: > >> We should also add the SGML notation from IBMIDDOC: >> >> "+//ISO/IEC 8879:1986//NOTATION SGML Document//EN" > >Please double check this. My reading of 8879 indicates that the above >is not a valid Formal Public Idendifier. According to productions 79-81, >if an FPI is to have an ISO owner identifier, it does *not* have the >initial "+//". True. Also see the examples in Annex D of 8879. In fact, look at productions 79-93. [80] defines three types of owner identifiers: ISO owner identifier, registered owner identifiers, and unregistered owner identifiers. [81] defines an ISO owner identifier to be minimum data, [82] defines a registered owner identifier to start with "+//", and [83] defines an unregistered owner identifier to start with "-//". >In fact, my understanding is that "+//" is for registered >owner identifiers only, and at the present time, there is no official >registration body, so there can be no registered owners and therefore >no "+//" FPIs except those that use ISBNs (which are registered). True in practice. If you want to be technical, ANSI is the registration authority, but they do not have procedures in place for actually registering owners. The GCA has volunteered to actual do the work for ANSI and expects ANSI approval of their suggested procedures, but when I last checked with Marion Elledge at the GCA a week or two ago, it hadn't happened yet. > >Furthermore, 8879 is officially "ISO 8879:1986" not "ISO/IEC 8879:1986" >(see, for example, all the FPIs for the character sets in annex D of 8879). True. > >I think having an official FPI for SGML notation is a great idea, but >since the owner of 8879 is SC18/WG8, I think you should ask them to >determine and bless an official FPI. (The convenor of WG8 is James >Mason [MASONJD@oax.a1.ornl.gov] and the editor of the WG8 SGML >Rapporteur Group is Charles Goldfarb [charles@sgmlsource.com].) Can't hurt to ask. > My >apologies if I'm off base on this, but the FPI above doesn't seem right >to me, and I do think it's important we don't proliferate >invalid/inappropriate FPIs. Again, true. --Lynne Lynne A. Price Text Structure Consulting lprice@ix.netcom.com (510) 498-1125