[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Mon Feb 10 14:24:04 PST 2014

On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> At base, I think we're being quite cavalier about the actual costs of incompatibility.

I think you are being quite cavalier about the costs of compatibility, Dave.   My point is simply that keeping backward compatibility in the grammar does not ensure backward compatibility in the implementation.   So the upside to keeping backward compatibility is questionable, and should be weighed in comparison to the costs, and not considered as an isolated Good Thing.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list