[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Wed May 7 07:18:40 PDT 2014

On 5/7/14 2:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

The same problem that is addressed by having well known extensions for 
other file types - to help people keep them organized and understand 
what they have.

Why do the current canonical form files all end in .txt?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list