[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed May 7 07:54:15 PDT 2014


On 2014-05-07 16:18, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 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.

What practical problem is solved by having a different extension?

(As we now define a media type a suggested suffix of course could be 
added, I just would like to understand whether this is something that 
really addresses a practical problem).

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

Why not? They are plain text files, after all.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list