Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> Now that IETF has officially moved to XML as the sole format
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean, can you provide a pointer?  AFAICT, the
> > latest published RFC is still only available as txt and pdf.
> 
> I meant that XML is the sole *input* format, per RFC 7990, but you're
> right about the XML not currently being easily accessed.   I've signed
> up for the IETF 104 CodeSprint to fix this, as well as to introduce
> folding support into the publishing process.
> 
> 
> >> No, there are cases where this fails.  We went thru this before.
> > 
> > Only if you have data with > 69 spaces in a row that needs to be
> > preserved.
> 
> More generally, anytime the fold occurs where space characters
> follow.  

No, b/c you wouldn't fold there.

> But why are you arguing for this? - the double-backslash approach
> works great for when indents are desired.   

Let's agree that it works :)

I'm arguing that *if* we are to define two solutions, we should use
this one.  (And as I explained, my preference is this one over the
double-backslash solution, but I accept the WG consensus for the
double-backslash solution)

> My interest in this thread was/is only to cover the common case 
> when there are no indents, and the continuation line always begins
> on column 1, in which case the 2nd backslash is unneeded and 
> somewhat counterintuitive.

But your continuation line will not start at column 1 (since artwork
is indented with 3 spaces by default).  So this solution doesn't
really work.



/martin