Change our terminology to separate the language from the grammar from the tool

[JayDaley]

In normal XML terminology there is the concept of an XML language, which may optionally be defined using a schema language, with that schema language definition referred to as the grammar. The terminology in RFC 7991 conflates the language with the tool by its use/definition of the term 'xml2rfc vocabulary' and then incorrectly uses 'grammar' in multiple places where it is documenting the 'language' and not the schema definition. Some work has already been done to clear this up with the introduction of the term RFCXML to replace 'xml2rfc vocabulary' in the authors documentation.

The next RFC should tidy this up with a clear definition of each, something like:

• The language is RFCXML
• The grammar is the formal definition of RFCXML as expressed in the schema language RelaxNG using the Compact Syntax.
• xml2rfc is a tool that processes the language and the grammar

The body of RFC 7991bis would then be a textual definition of the language RFCXML and the appendix would be documenting the grammar that formally defines the language.

[paulehoffman]

This is not policy, but it is an excellent suggestion for 7991bis.