[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Mon Feb 10 14:03:18 PST 2014
On 2/10/14 1:53 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
>> Whether we intend for v2 to be incompatible with v3 or not, it will be. And we will have to deal with that. So we are really just picking between two different types of incompatibility, and I see no compelling argument we have to have right now to determine which of those we should choose. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
> If v3 will not be backwards compatible even if we intend it to be (for
> all the reasons you state, with which I agree) then we might as well
> disclaim compatibility now and lose the shackles of v2's schema.
Well, there is a difference between bugs representing a break in
backwards compatibility and a wholesale toss of the old vocabulary.
> Note that some schema changes can be difficult to handle in XSLT. In
> particular, converting from a schema where sections don't nest to one
> where they do is very difficult to do elegantly in XSLTv2, and perhaps
> impossible in XSLTv1 (I gave up and moved to v2 when I wrote lyx2rfc's
> XSLT for converting LyXHTML to xml2rfc schema).
> It may be easier to work on the v3 processor and a converter in
> parallel than it is to work on a backwards-compatible v3 processor.
> Either way, leave it to the developers.
The developers will need the requirements from the authors and editors.
That's why we're having this conversation now, so we can hash out the
detailed requirements and get the tool written.
More information about the rfc-interest