[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2
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
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.
More information about the rfc-interest