[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Feb 11 08:42:21 PST 2014
On 2014-02-11 17:18, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I didn't expect that you would or could. But not doing so puts
> constraints on when/how it makes sense to migrate to the new versions.
> For instance, for one document that is still in draft state, I upgraded
> the xml so that it would work with the v2 tool. But when I generated my
> new version with the new tool, and did a diff to the prior version, it
> showed many more differences than just the intended ones, due to
> formatting differences. That was distracting, so I chose to keep using
> the old tool for the time being.
> Probably at some point I will issue a new version, where the *only*
> changes are the version number, date, and use of the new tool. It will
> show numerous changes from the prior version, but those will all be
> superficial and won't confuse anyone.
That makes a lot of sense.
> There could be similar issues if one wanted to publish an old RFC in a
> different format. Because it is a different format, one won't expect it
> to be identical to the old txt version. But one would not want to
> *replace* the xml with upgraded xml that is only used for new formats.
> Perhaps both xml versions could be stored, but I doubt we have a way to
> do that.
We wouldn't republish the TXT version, but we *would* generate HTML.
And the XML version right now isn't public anyway.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest