Re: [xml2rfc] Point about --v2v3 option

I can’t answer for Bob, but to me it was indeed feeling a bit strange that I can’t get xml2rfc to expect v2 only input and reliably act on it with v2 rules.  I don’t think that is a big problem going forward, but it was weird in the transition.  Look at

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-06.txt

for an example why surprise switching to v3 rules can be disconcerting (even if it wasn’t caused by xml2rfc acting on non-v2 input in this particular case).

Again, I don’t think this is much of a problem now going forward.

Grüße, Carsten

> On 2020-03-22, at 17:34, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> On 2020-03-22 15:19, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> A few weeks back, I was editing my old draft ietf-hep-dex and since the 
>> xml in there goes back years, and I was having problems (remember that 
>> pagebreak question?), I thought to 'force' v2 by:
>> 
>> xml2rfc --v2
>> 
>> Guess what, no such option but it acted as:
>> 
>> xml2rfc --v2v3
>> 
>> !!!
>> 
>> Something you may want to fix.
>> 
>> I bring this up now, as I did it again Friday.  I was rushed getting a 
>> bunch of things done and it kind of slipped out.  No harm as I knew 
>> about it from past mess ups.
> 
> Well, there's no way to force 'v2' for a draft with v3 XML, and unless
> you explicitly indicate --v3, a draft with v2 xml will be not be converted
> to v3 during processing.
> 
> Abbreviations of long options are accepted as long as they are unique,
> which is why --v2 did something, instead of being rejected.
> 
> Before going further, I think I'd better ask what you intended to happen
> with --v2:  Did you have a draft with v3 XML, or was it just insurance
> against processing through the v3 formatters?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Henrik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> xml2rfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc