| Re: [asciidoc-lang-dev] On the evolution of Asciidoc species ... erm specifications |
_______________________________________________Hi, all,
Do we want a default version, for all the existing Asciidoc files that have no version specified? I don't want to touch all of Spring's docs merely to add a version attribute. As part of other maintenance, sure, but otherwise, no.
Even better would be some way to identify the highest compatible version that an unversioned document can use, but that could get complicated in a hurry.
J
From: asciidoc-lang-dev <asciidoc-lang-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Dan Allen <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 1:35 AM
To: AsciiDoc developer discussions <asciidoc-lang-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [asciidoc-lang-dev] On the evolution of Asciidoc species ... erm specificationsLex,
Thanks for bringing this up. I just want to reply briefly to say that it is indeed to plan to version the spec, and semantic versioning is the logical choice. (Although this point has been made in several SC meetings, I see that it's absent from the program plan). You have provided more detail than I have stated anywhere, so I will be sure to incorporate that mapping into the information about the development workflow we'll be sending to the list shortly (and if not that email, certainly somewhere in the documents for the project).
> The document could specify the version with an attribute in the heading such as:
Indeed, this is the only way I've been able to think of allowing the language to evolve without forcing all existing documents to migrate. We may be able to come up with something shorter, but we'd still need some sort of indicator.
Best Regards,
-Dan
--
Dan Allen, Vice President | OpenDevise Inc.Pronouns: he, him, his
asciidoc-lang-dev mailing list
asciidoc-lang-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/asciidoc-lang-dev