[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed May 7 08:09:41 PDT 2014
On May 7, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-05-07 16:45, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 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.
> As in "XML namespace"? That would be a breaking change.
It would be, yes. It would also be easy to code for, yes?
More information about the rfc-interest