[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Feb 18 05:59:03 PST 2014


On 2/18/2014 5:52 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 6:53 AM, Riccardo Bernardini
> Hand hacking is going to be illusory.  If we support it, you will use
> it, and think it worked, and then someone will read the draft with a
> different style sheet and it'll be completely broken.


1. I thought the focus of this issue was xml2rfc vocabulary, not an 
external stylesheet.

2. I thought the point of noting the Latex experience was to underscore 
my comment that there is a very long history of seeking purity in the 
structural approach and an equally long history of not finding it 
sufficient.  Hence the lesson needs to be that it is preferred, but that 
some amount of 'directive' constructs is remains necessary.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list