On 15/12/2014 14:30, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > Anyone who really cares about backwards migration compatibility would > probably have to guard the subsection with the machine-type to avoid > (e) ever happening (the heuristic from (c) might be useful to add).
Right. > although if you do have to recut it, please clarify the text that says > 'and is enough to fix migration.' since it doesn't quite. Ok, I'll clarify this, specifying which case remains broken by design. > (This is an interesting example where with a migration format that allowed > 'optional' subsections you wouldn't break backwards migration if the > reader could ignore a section marked as such that it didn't recognise). Right, the question is whether you really want to do this. :) Paolo
