[rfc-i] Few nits in draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 8 08:58:21 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-08 17:53, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Hi, Paul.
> Had a quick look through the changes for -07. Mostly looking good.
> Just a few nits.
> s1.2.4, 1st bullet: s/format/representation/
> s2.16, para 2: s/formatter/processor/???
> s2.17 (and subsections) <date>: I am not convinced by the idea of
> having alternative free-format options for month and year attributes.
This is nothing new; it's the same thing in RFC2629 and v2.
> I support the <alternateURI>and its 'type' attribute. DOI's show up
> both as doi scheme and http scheme URIs (whether the latter should be
> classed as doi type I am not sure but they have the same effect.
So why do we need the type attribute then?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest