Subject: [Xml-sg-cmt] xml-model

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:10:23 -0700

Re: Jay's mail https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/CiMhKM0oz9OHIDVvI5JdP2V-vuI/ (partially pasted below).

At some point, should there be a line added to each RFC as follows?
<?xml-model href="https://www.example.org/v3.rnc"?>
(where the file is the current rnc, e.g., https://svn.ietf.org/svn/tools/xml2rfc/trunk/cli/xml2rfc/data/v3.rnc)

An example from https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-model/ :
<?xml-model href="http://www.docbook.org/xml/5.0/rng/docbook.rng"?>

Thanks,
Alice

On May 13, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
[...]
> My question is - what is the point of having a DTD that is non-canonical and that contains a schema quite different from the canonical schema and yet is regularly used in our I-Ds and therefore triggers validation of those I-Ds - what purpose does this serve? 
> 
> My answer is that it doesn’t serve any purpose but actively wastes time/resource and misdirects people, therefore we should do one of the following instead:
> 
> 1.   Recommend the use of rfc2629-html.ent in the DTD instead of rfc2629.dtd and that still provides all the character entities without the schema.  That results in no validation.
> 
> 2.   Create an rfc2629-v3.dtd that keeps the character entities but replaces the schema with the absolute minimum of <!ELEMENT rfc(ANY)*> and recommend that is used.  That results in trivial validation
> 
> 3.   Create an rfc2629-v3.dtd that is generated by trang from the v3 RNC and recommend that is used.  That results in meaningful but incomplete validation (assuming the RNC does not fully convert to a DTD).
> 
> 4.   Do 1 above and also recommend the use of <?xml-model …> pointing to the RNC (local copy).  That results in meaningful and complete validation.

[...]