[rfc-i] For v3: remove <format>?

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Thu Jan 2 09:05:52 PST 2014

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-12-27 06:42, Nico Williams wrote:
>> The primary argument is that interesting metadata should be
>> first-class.  The whole project is evidence that that's a good idea.
>> We should take it as a guiding principle and expect strong
>> justification for not applying it in any particular case.
> But then, another good principle is not to make the format too complicate,
> otherwise we could just copy docbook.

We could copy schemas that provide enormous typesetting power too.
But we don't need that, and this isn't about typesetting.

> If the use case is to annotate links then we shouldn't do that using custom
> elements but just annotate the links we have (using @rel and @type, just as
> in HTML; see <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#edef-A>).

If you do it using a distinguishable convention then you're preserved
that metadata and one wonders what this was all about.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list