[rfc-i] On backwards compatibility for v2

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Mon Feb 10 16:02:06 PST 2014

On 2/10/14 3:50 PM, Julian Reschke 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.
> 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).

Remember - there will probably be many more xml formatted for v1 than v2.

Are you planning a v1 to v3 translator?

If you want to use this to republish existing RFCs then the v3 
processor, applied to the converted XML, had better be bug compatible 
with a v1 xml2rfc, and produce output that is consistent down to every 
space and line break.

The compatibility requirements are less severe if only used to work on 
the "next" version of the document.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list