Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Imaginary vspace?

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 22. Jun 2023, at 13:55, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Out of curiosity: is there a good reason why it still emits a mix of v2
> and v3?

(It = kramdown-rfc)

Yes.  Three very good reasons.

(1) The only thing on earth that actually knows what RFCXMLv3 is, is xml2rfcv3.
Since it provides a function to generate RFCXMLv3 (*), we should obviously employ it.
(Since kramdown-rfc already has xml2rfc as a single point of failure, there is no reason to get rid of this dependency.)

If you need to placate your sense of aesthetics:
The fact that xml2rfc is employed for this can easily by hidden by using kdrfc with the -c flag.

(2) kramdown-rfc is a production program.  Adding risk by rewriting perfectly functional code needs to be minimized.
People usually detect problems 30 minutes before the Internet-Draft deadline, so kramdown-rfc better work.

(3) There is always something more urgent to do than making cosmetic fixes.  Well, there is some progress, but declaring an objective to generate conforming RFCXMLv3 would be busywork — we already can do that!

(4) If we ever get moving again towards a v3.1 or v4 or v2025, see (1).

Grüße, Carsten

(*) with incredibly few bugs.  The only ones I know of that actively get in the way is where the converter doesn’t consider all the grammar bugs of v3 and generates v3 that is logical, but not supported by the grammar.  This should be fixed by fixing the grammar, not by fixing the converter, which is already doing the right thing.

(5) Why should I change kramdown-rfc to generate buggy v3 when we know we’ll fix it (probably even this decade)?