[rfc-i] Where was the discussion?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jan 22 05:10:10 PST 2020


On 22.01.2020 13:37, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:45 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.

Well, the SVG RFC profile indeed has its own grammer, defined in RFC
7996, so not by the W3C.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list