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

Carsten Bormann <> Tue, 29 June 2021 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188BB3A3F20 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05-n-QcoBv2s for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B7873A3F1E for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GDwDy57ZXz2xJ3; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:55:14 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:55:14 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20210627013258.1D30F188447C@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] .txt? [I-D Action: draft-xxx.txt]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:55:21 -0000

> 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