W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2012

Re: obsoleting 3986 -- what would it look like?

From: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:54:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWM5Tyx+gca9cpOMdLM-iMuEykFC5VzC-tx3ZrmVg3Ko2wKLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> I hacked an XML export option into Bill Fenner's "BAP" (Bill's ABNF parser).
> Sources at
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/browser/abnfparser/bap>.

Great! I'll extract a schema and export the same format. I will report
here with deviations as I find them.

>> Is there a central repository of RFC XML (RFC 2629) documents?
>
> xml.resource.org has some. Are you looking for a specific one?

I didn't see any RFC XML docs (just tools) at that URL but perhaps I
missed something obvious. I am looking for XML representations of
2141, 3986, 3987, and 5234. Does IETF keep XML documents as canonical
representations? They appear to publish the official standards in
ASCII.

It would be super-cool if <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX> had a
link with "[txt|pdf]" for XML or a <link> in the HTML source for an
XML alternate. This seems dependent on IETF practices w.r.t. draft
conformance requirements. Is use of XML and xml2rfc mandatory? If so,
what needs to be done to expose XML representations for all RFCs?

Thanks,

David
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 01:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC