[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Jul 2 00:56:05 PDT 2012
On 2012/06/30 0:52, Martin Rex wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> ? backwards-incompatible versions, where code is expected to break
>> and must be manually ported. The first part of the version number is
>> incremented. These releases happen infrequently--for example,
>> version 3.0 was released 8 years after 2.0.
> Correct, it is the strict/full backwards compatibility that counts.
> There is a disappointing low number of languages that tries hard to
> *NOT* break existing code, even when adopting new features.
> When the version numbering of the language is explicitly designed to
> break backwards compatibility, then it is problably a language not
> worth using for anything where longevity matters.
What matters for the RFC series is the stability of the format and its
semantics. XML itself is extremely stable, in particular as far as we
are concerned for RFCs.
The of the programming language(s) used for conversion isn't a bad
thing, but it's way less important. Some program languages, in
particular those well suited for the kinds of transformation jobs that
we need, tend to prefer progress to rigidity, for good reasons. In most
cases, "manual porting" is done quite quickly.
More information about the rfc-interest