On 10/8/19 6:46 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:18, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi Carsten,
On 2019-10-08 23:48, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 8, 2019, at 23:23, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(2) The default output formatters will change to v3. The v2 formatters
will still be available by using a --legacy switch.
Please do this in a way that will not randomly break scripts and
other programs that need to run xml2rfc. (A calling script/program
has no idea what version of xml2rfc is installed locally.) [Actually,
that is also true of people calling xml2rfc…]
Does it work for you if we say 'if you want v2 output, please add --legacy
to your scripts already now’?
It sure works for me, but I don’t know all the other users of my software.
The --legacy switch to force v2 output (for compatible input) has been
available for around 6 months, so even if you don't have the bleeding
edge version installed, this should work as a compatibility path, I think?
6 months is very short in the grand scheme of things.
Generally people will upgrade tools like kramdown-rfc and xml2rfc on different timelines.
(And there are also a few hundred makefiles in some repositories somewhere that call xml2rfc.)
With that out of the way, I must admit I don’t even understand what this means:
Format Options:
--v3 with --text and --html: use the v3
formatter, rather than the legacy one.
--legacy with --text and --html: use the legacy
text formatter, rather than the v3
one.
Does the choice of “legacy” and “v3” formatter have an influence on the accepted XML vocabulary? On the output format? Both? How?
I have encounter:
draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto-02.xml(14): Warning: Setting
consensus="true" for IETF STD document (this is not the schema default,
but is the only value permitted for this type of document)
Created file draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto-02.txt
when using the--v3 switch.
I have been told not to worry about this, but so far I have not found
any documentation on "consensus".
