[rfc-i] Where was the discussion?

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Wed Jan 22 04:37:16 PST 2020


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:45 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Fortunately, the SVG spec is separate and defined by W3C in any case. The
schema bears little resemblance to the constraints imposed by the tools,
the informal description is not consistent with the formal and there are
much better ways to constrain an XML schema than writing a RelaxNG schema
that is sort-of but not-quite the same.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200122/5e1a9fb3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list