[rfc-i] <list> brainstorming
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jan 29 06:17:26 PST 2014
On 2014-01-29 15:01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com
> <mailto:nico at cryptonector.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <hallam at gmail.com <mailto:hallam at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Why not just move to HTML and have done?
> Because we want to be able to express metadata by schema rather than
> by convention.
> I have a schema... just maybe not an XML schema.
I don't think anybody is particularly interested by "XML Schema" over here.
> The whole point of XML is that it is extensible. Yet we spend our time
> trying to develop a whole new document format rather than add in the
No, we are revising one that we already have.
> extra information our particular application needs. That looks to me
> like something is wrong somewhere.
Again, "HTML + metadata extensions" was on the table as well, but the
decision has been made to revise the xml2rfc format instead.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest