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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:48:42 +0100
Message-ID: <50A2258A.2090506@gmx.de>
To: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
On 2012-11-13 01:54, David Sheets wrote:
> 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

Well hidden, I guess. See <http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/>.

> 2141, 3986, 3987, and 5234. Does IETF keep XML documents as canonical
> representations? They appear to publish the official standards in


Sources for 3986 and 5234 are at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/>, 
they use extensions so you'll have to look at 

> 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,

No, it's not.

> what needs to be done to expose XML representations for all RFCs?

You can always ask the RFC Editor whether they have a copy of the XML; 
they should for most RFCs of the last ~7 years.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 10:49:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:56 UTC