[rfc-i] xml2rfc media type and versioning

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jan 28 01:33:23 PST 2014


On 2014-01-28 09:01, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello.
>
> looking at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-xml2rfc-03#section-6.1 (the
> media type registration for the in the latest xml2rfc v2 vocabulary
> draft), i was wondering about the versioning aspect of the media type.
>
> if it is intended to make v2 and v3 compatible in both directions (v2
> documents can be meaningfully processed by a v3 processor, and v3
> documents can be meaningfully processed by a v2 processor), then it
> definitely would be great to have just one media type. is such a
> versioning design planned?

That is my intent.

> if the answer to this question is yes, then i would propose that the
> xml2rfc v2 vocabulary draft gets an "extensibility model" section, in
> which it is explained what extension points the vocabulary has, and how
> processors have to handle them. v3 then needs to make sure that it stays
> within the bounds of this model.

That'll be tricky :-) Do you have a concrete proposal?

> if it is not planned to make v2/v3 fully compatible in this way, then i
> think it might be necessary to add some versioning strategy to the media
> type, so that processors can detect the version of a document and apply
> the correct processing model.
> ...

I believe that would be total overkill, given the fact that we've used 
xml2rfc without a media type. It should be sufficient if the content 
contains sufficient for a processor to do the right thing. As long as we 
don't change the interpretation of existing elements significantly, 
there shouldn't be any problem.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list