Re: [rfc-i] Immutability (was: on Rfced-future)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2020-04-06, at 04:58, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> If there isn't a v3.n sub-version number in the XML files today, there 
>>> certainly should be.</heresyAlert>
>> 
>> Is the date insufficient?  That is, we could decide to process a document by pretending that we have the
>> limited knowledge and tools of the date of publication.
> 
> If we're going to bite the bullet and join the world of updatable
> documents, we might as well use version numbers like everyone else
> does.

Well, everybody else is struggling to move from EcmaScript 6 to EcmaScript 2015.
This of course works best when the publishers have established a rhythm (e.g., every year, as in this case, or maybe twice a year).

(Date of publication ≠ date of tool interface in use, though.)

((There is an ongoing discussion of protocol versions, protocol features, and document revisions in T2TRG right now, so I couldn’t resist.  Oh, and for ECMAScript the number counts “editions”, a term I didn’t have in active use in that discussion yet.))

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest