Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Re-adding the context you dropped:

> I do understand that both would interfere with extraction code that has
> been written for plain text, but that should not be needed/used anymore
> in the v3 xml world anyway. 
zooming in to the particular specific you are asking for:

> that should not be needed/used anymore
> in the v3 xml world anyway. 
and again returning context:

> For the v3 transition, I'm still more on the fence that it's too soon 
> to break people's toolchains just because we can. At some point, when 
> there's not such a mix of historic text files that have to be 
> processed along with the new things (which may or may not be in v3 
> format while they are internet drafts), then sure - we can say "Get 
> with the times". But I don't think those times are here yet. 
I'm puzzled that you didn't find the exact point of disagreement in 
that, but I'll try to restate it:

Some people have repeatedly held the position it's ok to disrupt 
existing toolchains because what we're creating is so much better and 
breakage will make people use the new thing. Others think that a longer 
period of transition allowing older toolchains to continue working is 
important.



On 11/2/20 11:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 02.11.2020 um 17:17 schrieb Robert Sparks:
>> It's worth noting that this has been a fundamental point of disagreement
>> between people involved in the v3 effort (and is often so in any world
>> where you are adding big new things).
>> ...
>
> Which point exactly?
>
> Best regards, Julian

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