Hello Tom, others, On 2023-11-26 20:15, tom petch wrote:
<tp>
A further example that I omitted in my first post, is about XML. RFC with YANG modules are encouraged to include examples and that has been XML. Sometime after that started, I started seeing posts from IANA to WG lists asking an XML group to review the examples and the XML group always said that the examples were invalid and wanted changes. As far as YANG is concerned, the examples are perfectly valid and pass validation by tools but authors started to incorporate those changes to placate IANA. What is IANA's justification for requiring this conformance to someone else's, not YANG's, rules?
'valid'/'invalid' for XML have very clear definitions. If you use XML, you should abide by XML's rules, I'd assume. It's possible to not use validation (when not using a DTD (or a schema)). I don't know whether YANG uses DTDs or schemas. If it does, it should abide by its own rules. If it doesn't, you are talking about something else and should use different terminology and explain the problems in greater detail.
What I now see is a lack of XML for examples and excessive use of JSON. (Will IANA find a JSON directorate to declare these invalid:-( For me, XML is superior to JSON when it comes to illustrating the use of YANG and I am thinking that if IANA had not intervened, then I would still be getting XML.
I may be wrong, but I don't think IANA has any preferences for XML or JSON. YANG itself defines whether it can be written in both XML and JSON, or in only one of them. If it allows JSON, then there shouldn't be any problem with JSON, even if you personally prefer XML.
Regards, Martin.
