[rfc-i] New version of the v2 and v3 examples draft

Miek Gieben miek at miek.nl
Wed Jan 21 04:03:52 PST 2015


[ Quoting <julian.reschke at gmx.de> in "Re: [rfc-i] New version of the v2 a..." ]
>>I personally prefer docName that is used in v2 to 'value' that is used
>>here.
>
>The goal is to unify document information (previously spread over many 
>attributes on the root element).

Ok, but 'value' seems particularly non-descriptive in this case.

>>Would it also be worth splitting off the version, ala version="00" ?
>
>Why?

It could be slightly easier when updating a draft, to just update a
version attribute. But never mind, it's not a big issue.

/Miek

--
Miek Gieben


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list