Hi Elwyn, Julian,
On 2014-07-09 20:37 Julian Reschke said the following:
> Elwyn,
>
> thanks for the review. I'll get to most things later, but let me comment on:
>
> > s1, para 2:
>> OLD
>> It obsoletes the original version ("v1") [RFC2629], which contained
>> the original language definition, and which was subsequently extended
>> ("v2", [V1rev]). Furthermore, it discusses potential extensions in a
>> future revision ("v3").
>> NEW:
>> It obsoletes the initial version ("v1") [RFC2629], which contained
>> the original language definition, and which was subsequently extended
>> ("v1rev", [V1rev]), which has been the vocabulary understood by
>> version 1 of the xml2rfc processor (written in TCL). The v2 vocabulary
>> is a superset of the v1 vocabulary with relatively minor improvements
>> and is understood by version 2 of the xml2rfc processor (written in
>> Python) which superseded the version 1 processor in 2014.
>
> right away :-)
>
> That proposed change is factually incorrect. The Python code understands
> exactly the same vocabulary as the TCL code (ignoring bugs for a moment).
Yes, Julian is right. The idea with v2 was to port the implementation
from TCL to Python without changing the vocabulary. (We did add strict
schema validation, though, with the effect that some document that didn't
follow the schema, but were processed successfully by v1, are rejected
by v2.)
Currently, almost all bugfixes to V2 are a matter of correcting places where
it (for valid input) doesn't produce good output, while v1 does. There are
some cases where it actually has been made to produce better output than v1,
(page breaking (orphan and widow handling) in particular has gotten a bit of
attention) but there should be no intentional differences in vocabulary.
Best regards,
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
