[rfc-i] xml2rfc media type and versioning
dret at berkeley.edu
Tue Jan 28 01:50:12 PST 2014
On 2014-01-28, 10:33 , Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 09:01, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> 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?
not yet, but i can work on something. i don't think that without such a
section it would be wise to not have (some form of) explicit versioning.
the extensibility model could be as simple as HTML's rule to ignore
unknown element tags and attributes, but to process the contents of
unknown elements. i am not sure this exact model would work for xml2rfc,
but i think this is the kind of extensibility model that is required if
the goal is full compatibility across vocabulary versions.
> 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.
that's fine, and probably a good goal to have. but given that there
probably will be v2 and v3 documents floating around for a while, it
would be good to have it spelled out how they are distinguished, and how
they are processed.
erik wilde | mailto:dret at berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
More information about the rfc-interest