[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Wed May 7 08:11:47 PDT 2014


On 5/7/14 10:54 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

Are you asking what is solved by having unique extensions for each form 
of the document? Or what is solved by changing it from .xml to something 
else?

Having a unique extension for each form makes it more convenient to save 
different forms of the same document in a single directory and keep them 
straight.

Having those extension names consistent across authors helps when 
documents are passed around.

Continuing to use .xml satisfies those needs. It becomes a (admittedly 
small) problem when files representing documents are mixed with files 
used for other purposes.

Having a unique extension allows configuring a default action for these 
files when opened - possibly choosing a different tool than might be 
used for arbitrary xml files.

I'm not claiming this is a major issue. If I am the only one who thinks 
this would be helpful then I'll forget it.

> (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.

xml files are also plain text. Why don't we use .txt for them too?
C and Java files are plain text, but we don't normally use .txt for them 
either.

	Thanks,
	Paul



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list