[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Mon Feb 17 12:09:43 PST 2014
On 2/17/14 2:39 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. Given the differing views on backward compatibility with v2, I have a proposed plan (partially originating from Joe Hildebrand):
> - Don't remove anything from v2 in v3. Instead, add in something that is better and mark the v2 method as "deprecated".
> - Specify that the canonical RFCs will not have any markup that uses the deprecated format.
> - Specify that the processor have a "convert with warnings" mode that will convert a v2 document to a v3 document that converts deprecated elements wherever possible, issuing warnings for where it cannot convert.
> - Say that, if there is ever a v4 format, it is possible for the deprecated bits from v2 will be removed at that time.
This all seems ok.
> The "wherever possible" in the third bullet comes from the current proposal to remove <vspace>. We can do that with new list elements, but <vspace> was also used in other contexts, as Julian pointed out on rfc-interest yesterday. In those cases, the processor would issue warnings with line numbers and maybe even suggestions for what they are doing wrong. The processor could also have a "strict" mode that would throw errors if some XML has any deprecated elements.
Exactly what are the cases where vspace can't be replaced with something
I think that we will probably have sufficient mechanisms to replace
<vspace> in those places.
Assuming it is allowed in enough places, <artwork> can replace many uses
of vspace where blankLines is > 1, and maybe when blankLines=1.
It is a bit more troublesome when blankLines==0.
> Do people here like this proposal? If there is agreement I should try this, I would revert all of the non-backwards-compatible changes, mark things as deprecated and indicate the newer way of doing them. For lists, I would then go to HTMLish lists like <ul>, <ol>, and so on.
I'm for it.
> --Paul Hoffman
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest