[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Mon Feb 10 08:59:26 PST 2014
On 2/10/14 11:11 AM, Paul Hoffman 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.
> 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.
> 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.
OK, as long as the migration is easy.
I've been having trouble getting documents from v1 to v2.
More information about the rfc-interest