[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 10 13:28:05 PST 2014

On 2014-02-10 22:21, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-10 20:16, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> On 2/10/14 9:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/2014 8:11 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> - There will be good v2-to-v3 conversion tools for when an author
>>>>> wants to change versions.
>>>> So all of the existing corpus of xml2rfc files would have to be
>>>> converted, and all of the existing base of user environments would have
>>>> to be upgraded?
>>>> Really?
>>> If an RFC has an XML file, and if that RFC is going to go through a -bis
>>> process, then they could run through a converter tool to use v3
>>> vocabulary.  But wholesale updates to everything, given they aren't
>>> canonical files and generally don't include the final updates made
>>> immediately prior to publication?  Why would we do that?
>>> ...
>> For instance, because, at some point, we may want to publish even older XMLs in the new format.
> What would the purpose of that be? Why would we not just convert?

Conversion would work as well-

>> Reminder: whether the XML source that we have on archive is an accurate representation of the published RFC can be determined programatically (by rerunning xml2rfc, and diffing with the published plain text).
> No one suggested any different. Why should that affect the v3 format?

It doesn't necessarily; I just wanted to give an example why historic 
files are something we shouldn't ignore.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list