[rfc-i] rfc docName for drafts

[pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu (Paul Kyzivat)]

On 6/10/16 1:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-06-09 20:49, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> It seems that, for drafts, the convention is for the docName to be the
>> filename of the text version of the draft. (E.g., draft-foo-bar-03.txt)
>> This then appears on the first page of the document. And it appears with
>> .txt even when the rendition of the document you are looking at isn't a
>> txt document.
>>
>> Is this convention universal, or is it just within the realm I inhabit.
>
> Actually, the convention is to leave the extension out, and it's
> documented like that in RFC 7749:
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#element.rfc.attribute.docName>

OK, then I've simply been copying from bad examples.

	Thanks,
	Paul

>> As we move to a world where the authoritative form isn't txt, and where
>> the form typically viewed isn't txt, ISTM that this convention ought to
>> be changed. Perhaps the file extension for the format should be omitted.
>
> Yes.
>
>> ...
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>