[rfc-i] XInclude usage
mnot at mnot.net
Wed Aug 4 17:02:33 PDT 2021
It seems to me that we really need two schema:
1) what the RPC accepts as input
2) what the RPC publishes as an RFC
... because they are getting more different, and trying to accommodate both in a single schema confuses people who want to know what (1) and (2) are definitively.
> On 5 Aug 2021, at 8:18 am, Martin Thomson <mt at lowentropy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, at 03:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Back in 2017, Julian Reschke asked  that we clarify the scope of
>> a. Limit the usage of XInclude to XML only (parse="xml"), not arbitrary
>> text (parse="text")
>> b. Don't support fallback 
>> c. Don't support XPointer 
> I've always said that we should aggressively limit the capabilities we need. I will note that XInclude is generally only used for intermediate formats, so the "interop" case for a limited profile is less than elsewhere. Perhaps your tool just supports XPointer and that's OK. It's even possible that it would be work to remove that capability from xml2rfc.
> That all said, I support keeping it simple: this is the feature set we depend on (a lot), so this is what we should say has to be supported. Nothing stopping a tool from supporting or even relying on more, but the resulting document wouldn't be for consumption by anything else.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
More information about the rfc-interest