[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed May 7 07:45:29 PDT 2014

On May 6, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> AFAIK source files intended to processing by xml2rfc typically have a .xml extension. (At least that seems to be what is used in tools.) IMO this is inappropriate - the extension ought to be more specific to the expected format of the document.

Why do you want this? It is hopefully not to make "opening" the document more automatic because there are at least different reasons to open an XML RFC file: to view it, to process it.

If what you want is a way to say "this XML is actually an RFC", an internal namespace declaration should be sufficient.

> ISTM that introduction of this format as the canonical form would be a good time adopt some more appropriate extension.

...or namespace.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list