Re: [Tools-discuss] .txt? [I-D Action: draft-xxx.txt]

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> If this really is a problem in practice, we can of course publish a
> schema that takes this into account (a pre-include schema).

(Such a grammar actually exists; I forget the reason why I did have to create my own version anyway.)

> FWIW, with the old style PIs, documents by definition never were valid
> because of dangling anchors.

But that doesn’t get in the way as much as structural deviations do.
(Most editors allow you to have an IDREF before putting in the ID.)

>> Which is, of course the one I used during the first 10 years of using RFCXML; I wasn’t even aware about the PI form before I moved away from keyboarding XML.
>> But others were (and some still use XML), and I’m trying to be their advocate here.
> 
> Can we hear from them, please?

Sure (from an unsolicited passage in a recent e-mail exchange where I was asked to convert an older draft from XML to markdown):

> I started writing this draft before I switched to markdown. Now I hate everytime I have to edit xml....

I rest my case.

Grüße, Carsten