[rfc-i] extension for xml2rfc files?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed May 7 08:16:06 PDT 2014

On 2014-05-07 17:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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?

It would be easy to code for if we do not support the old format anymore.

If we do however keep that support, we have essentially doubled the 
number of elements in the vocabulary. It's a totally disruptive change.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list