[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 6 23:12:06 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-07 02:03, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> [...]. IMO this is inappropriate - the extension ought to be more specific to the
>> expected format of the document. [...]
> .xml _is_ specific to the format of the document: XML. You meant
> schema, I know :) but still: the schema/DTD is declared in the XML,
It's not in general, and v3 doesn't have an official DTD.
> therefore it can be "tasted", so why pollute the file extension
> namespace? I've never felt a need for this.
I'd like first to understand what problem we are trying to solve by
having a more specific file extension.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest