Well, we agree on some things :-)
From: "Joe Touch" <touch@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:40 PM
Julian Reschke wrote:
Joe Touch schrieb:
...
As long as future versions are backward compatible with all past
versions, that's fine. That has not been my impression of xml2rfc over
the small window I tried to use it.
...
I guess that depends on the expectation. RFC2629 defines semantical
markup. If your expectation is that a given input document will produce
*identical* ASCII output over time, then yes, you may experience
incompatibilities.
That's a problem when it changes page numbers (which end up being as
useful as semantic tags) or figures. Or (as importantly) template or
boilerplate text.
(a) I see changing page numbers as pretty darned inconsequential, because
it's just as easy to reference section numbers (and certainly works better
when one suspects that all of the readers are cheating, and looking up the
references in HTML versions that don't have page numbers anyway, but ignore
that for now)
(b) template and boilerplate changes are pretty darned CONsequential. One
obvious boilerplate item that needs to NOT change is IPR conformance
statements, for example. There are likely others.
(c) I believe we are talking in good faith, and are both bright enough guys.
I would love to have a meaningful and terminating discussion on requirements
for XML2RFC backward compatibility, etc. but suspect this would work better
if we were making a commitment to use XML2RFC as a normal part of our
processes and procedures (so we also have "skin in the game"). I wonder how
best to move forward on this stuff (as much fun as chattering on the IETF
list has proven to be).
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf