Re: [xml2rfc] Multiple email addresses in <address/>

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2021-03-08, at 17:20, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Am 08.03.2021 um 16:37 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
>> On 2021-03-08, at 16:11, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Now it works with two <email/> lines.
>> 
>> It is somewhat suboptimal that these relaxations of the v3.rnc were not grandfathered into the v2 support.
>> ...
> 
> That's essentially true for *everything* in v3, for xml2rfc.
> 
> The original idea was that a v3 processor would accept *all* of v2
> (that's why we did *deprecate* things in the spec, not *remove* them).
> Unfortunately, the v2 and v3 modes in xml2rfc are entirely different
> code paths, and you can't easily mix new stuff with elements that were
> deprecated.

I understand that (and agree) there was a desire to preserve the v2 codepaths in xml2rfc as a safety measure.

However, the xml2rfc migration path works very well when --v3 is given to xml2rfc.
All v2 constructions (with very few bugs) are supported well by the v2v3 converter.

The problem is in the way the submission interface treats its input.

I haven’t checked the code, but it seems it does a v3 conformance check and only uses the --v3 mode if that succeeds.  But that is not the way the “v2 with some v3” documents look like.  These also should be treated with --v3, but they aren’t.

Again, running the v2 code paths from the submission interface may initially have been a prudent safety hedge, but by now it is creating more way more damage than it helps.

Grüße, Carsten