[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?

2008-12-29 03:35:15

Ned Freed wrote:
But I'm sitll a little confused as to what you're asking for here. If you're
asking for removal of the explicit inline XML syntax examples in favor of a
more abstract approach, I'd be fine with that if there's a WG consensus to make
such a change.
no - i'm very happy with the syntax examples
i would like to see the approach used in RFC 5023 (and others)
adopted, adding a normative description of the XML and making the
schema only informative.
Personally, I find RFC 5023 approach, like the XOPEN object descriptions it's
similar to, to be almost totally unreadable. Maybe it's the only reasonable way
to do it when the element structure is quite complex, but that's not the case
Speaking as an individual: I tend to agree with Ned here. I prefer having some formal syntax for defining XML + some examples demonstrating different Sieve features. I think adding a descriptive definition of XML is a fair bit of work for little gain. However, I would not oppose to having some descriptive definition (which I think should be informative), especially if somebody suggests some text ;-).
So, absent some fairly strong support for this from others in the group, I'm
not going to pursue this.