Hi, In the coverage draft we propose a naming convention within the text. However, I think the proposal from Lada of a "role" makes sense... It seems to be a more flexible approach, since it could cover other type of files that could be useful in validating more complex pipelines.
A naive question. A lot of people are moving away from building drafts using xml, and inclining more for markdown. I don't have official stats though. Sticking with XML would still allow for marking correctly everything in markdown? Looking at https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc/wiki/Syntax doesn't provide a clear answer right away. Camilo > On 14 Oct 2025, at 11:27, Ladislav Lhotka > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 14. 10. 2025 v 18:13, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>: >> >> On Oct 14, 2025, at 16:45, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> type=“yang”… >> >> Actually, >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types >> >> has: >> >> • yang >> • yang-instance-data+json >> • yangtree >> >> (and you can get additional ones of needed, and media types can also be used >> as source code-types.) > > This is even better, but it still doesn't discriminate instance data snippets > or sketches from complete examples that are intended to be formally > validated. Instead of introducing new sourcecode/media types for this, it > would IMO be cleaner to introduce a new attribute, e.g. "role". > > Lada > >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >> > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
