[rfc-i] Keeping some of the PIs from v2 in v3, but as an actual part of the grammar
tony at att.com
Tue Mar 18 12:01:24 PDT 2014
On 3/18/14, 2:23 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> ...that being said, I note that you didn't list "include" :-)
> Correct. Includes could be a security nightmare for the draft submission tool. If someone needs to do includes, they can use their own tooling to make that happen.
I disagree; they're no more of a security nightmare than they are
currently via xml.resource.org.
We need to be able to at least do includes from the bibliographic database.
More information about the rfc-interest