[rfc-i] date formats, Re: Few nits in draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 8 09:30:07 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-08 18:22, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 17:58 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
> Hmm. That appears to be a piece of undocumented functionality
> in/post-facto rationalisation of the existing tools. Personally I
> hadn't grocked that the <date> attributes weren't type checked in
> References (only, presumably). The older documents imply day/year
> numbers and month names are what is expected.
RFC 2629 is very incomplete.
The V2 draft attempts to describe the vocabulary as it is implemented
*and* used, and vague dates *are* used in practice (like it or not).
>>> 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?
> To make it clear that it really is a DOI without having to guess.
I was asking because you said "whether the latter should be
classed as doi type I am not sure but they have the same effect"...
Before we complicate things needlessly: can somebody explain why we need
to allow different notations for DOIs? Why can't we just use their URI
scheme and be done with it? Please?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest