[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 10 14:56:24 PST 2014


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> *My* main reason for trying to be compatible is about something else though:
> once we decide that breaking things is OK, we'll likely have big vocabulary
> design debates that are common when designing new XML vocabularies, and
> there *will* be people showing up asking to switch to (X)HTML if we break
> things anyway. We can avoid all of this by adding a v2 compat constraint.

I think this argument is as legitimate -and weak- as an argument about
user learning curve.  But now there's two legitimate -if weak-
arguments for making the v3 schema backwards compatible with the v2
schema, and that's probably strong enough.  For now we should adopt
backwards-compatibility is a requirement, albeit a weak one in that
we'll re-open the matter if any difficulties arise in delivering it

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list