[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 10 08:39:54 PST 2014
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Don't forget - for backward compatibility, <list> should still allow <t> elements, instead of, or mixed with, <li> elements.
I don't mind if the v3 schema is NOT backwards-compatible with the v2
schema. XSLT can be used to convert documents from v2 to v3 (and even
> The design criteria of the changes from v2 to v3 are:
> - The intention is that starting and editing a v3 document will be easier than for a v2 document.
> - There will be good v2-to-v3 conversion tools for when an author wants to change versions.
> - There are no current plans to make v3 XML the required submission format for drafts or RFCs. That might happen eventually, but it is likely to be years away.
Presumably v3 will be acceptable for submission immediately (or soon
after) upon xml2rfc v3 availability.
> Given especially the second of those, there is a desire to not try too hard to maintain backward compatibility, particularly when doing so would make the vocabulary more complex. Having said that, there is certainly no desire to make gratuitous changes. The v2-to-draft tools are expected to be around for a long time, and any time someone wants to move to v3, there will be a one-step process.
More information about the rfc-interest