Subject: [xml2rfc] Point about --v2v3 option

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:19:15 -0400

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.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 17:34:01 +0100

Hi Bob,

> 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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 17:56:18 +0100

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 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:06:52 -0400

> against processing through the v3 formatters?

I just wanted to ensure V2 rules on this old draft.  Anyone that does 
use --v2 and think it will force v2 rules will quickly see this does not 
work, as it generates the v2v3 xml.

Nothing 'bad' happens, just surprising.

But as Carsten agreed, it would be nice to enforce v2 rules for the old 
stuff still hanging around.  But make the authors ask for it, and then 
understand what will happen with it gets into the Editor queue.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:29:58 +0100

On 22.03.2020 17:56, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> ...

Hm, different order in which seriesInfo elements are processed? Smells
like a bug to me.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:06:58 -0400

>> which is why --v2 did something, instead of being rejected.

To prevent this from happening again, how about defining a --v2 rule? 
(Even if all it does is generate an error.)

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 21:34:44 +0100

Hi Paul,

> (Even if all it does is generate an error.)

Yes, I thought of that.  Will do so soon (not necessarily in the next
release, though).

	Henrik