[rfc-i] Where was the discussion?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jan 21 21:44:46 PST 2020
On 22.01.2020 03:14, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2020, at 12:53 pm, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> possible proposals to extend it?
> It's probably good to be clear about what we mean about "extend" in the context of an XML format defined by Relax NG.
> Any new attribute or element is going to fail validation using the schema in RFC7991 - there's not really anything to be done about that. So, a new schema will need to be written and published; effectively there is no backwards-compatible extension of that format, we need to "fork" it, not extend it.
We need to *revise* it.
I argued to allow extension elements attributes using extension
namespaces, but couldn't get support for that.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest