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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 04 March 2019 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32737127AC2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:40:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YO9SbgrGUE2j for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6996C1276D0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EC671AE0118; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:40:06 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 09:40:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20190304.094006.527512831015675938.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, joelja@bogus.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <3af58c925ad74fbfaaea299877bf992d@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <6E24D34F-9943-4A71-9F28-4E4548FF30B0@bogus.com> <057f01d4ce80$7bc4fc70$734ef550$@olddog.co.uk> <3af58c925ad74fbfaaea299877bf992d@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9bUfry0kO3V8e-xwgTg7x_AWHCQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:40:10 -0000

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> I mostly agree with your last sentence.
> 
> I think that if you always preserve whitespace then a single slash is
> fine.  I.e. the single slash just breaks the line, and I think that
> this matches how editors, programming languages, etc normally behave.
> 
> What I’m not keen on is using a single slash, and then automatically
> stripping leading whitespace on the line following a slash.

And this is the solution that I prefer.  The reason for this is that I
view examples as something that is there to illustrate some point to
the reader, and I think that a prettier formatted example with less
noise helps the reader.  I also think that is most cases, this works
well; i.e., most cases are _not_ on the form:

   12345      78990
          ^-------------- I need a line break here


For this problem, I prefer a solution that is intuitive and has less
noise and works for 90% of the cases, than a less intuitive solution
with more noise that works for 100% of the cases.


/martin



> 
> If we want to have control of layout and be able to strip extra
> whitespace then my argument is that it is better to be explicit, and
> using two slashes is one way of achieving this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 27 February 2019 09:41
> To: 'Joel Jaeggli' <joelja@bogus.com>
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?
> 
> Complete agreement, Joel.
> 
> What follows may look better in proportional fonts.
> 
> With a single slash we can wrap as follows
> 
> 1234567        9012345
> 
> Goes to…
> 
> 1234567    \
>     9012345
> 
> …and unwrapping is easy.
> 
> However, if I want to manually wrap the line with indentation
> 
> The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
> 
> ..going to…
> 
> The quick brown fox\
>       jumps over the lazy dog
> 
> …I am going to unfold as…
> 
> The quick brown fox      jumps over the lazy dog
> 
> 
> Conversely, if I resolve this second case by stripping leading spaces
> I get…
> 
> The quick brown foxjumps over the lazy dog
> 
> So I have to fold as…
> 
> The quick brown fox \
>       jumps over the lazy dog
> 
> But this causes the first case to unfold as
> 
> 1234567    9012345
> 
> …i.e., with missing spaces.
> 
> This is what caused the use of the second slash so…
> 
> 1234567    \
> \    9012345
> 
> …and…
> 
> The quick brown fox\
>      \ jumps over the lazy dog
> 
> 
> So, my point is, if and only if we do not care about these “spaces on
> the fold” cases, we can operate with a single slash.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com>>
> Sent: 27 February 2019 06:31
> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>
> Cc: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net<mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>>;
> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 26, 2019, at 14:26, Adrian Farrel
> <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
> Hey.
> 
> I’ve been having this discussion with Kent off-line, but thought it
> should come to the list.
> 
> I don’t think it is a good idea to have two approaches. While it would
> be relatively easy to code for both approaches, it seems to add a
> degree of confusion if both have to be handled by the same code
> (consider deciding whether leading space characters are to be retained
> or not, something that can only be decided when the first non-space
> character is found), or by having different code for the two different
> cases.
> 
> It doesn’t seem to me that both cases are needed. We can pick one or
> the other.
> 
> A single slash has been used to wrap long lines in editors and shells
> for decades at this point.
> 
> and yeah whatever it is one method seems better than two.
> 
> 
> And *if* we want to allow manual folding so that indents can be made
> to make the document more human-readable then we have to use a leading
> ‘\’ on continuation lines to show which spaces should be stripped and
> which retained.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>>
> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: 25 February 2019 22:22
> To: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: [netmod] artwork folding: dual support modes?
> 
> 
> I had a chat with the tools team recently and, in the course of
> things, it was implied
> that the double backslash approach we have now was both surprising and
> non-intuitive.
> 
> This got me thinking that we may have thrown the proverbial baby out
> with the bathwater.
> That is, currently we have a header that reads:
> 
> 
>   NOTE: '\\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX)
> 
> So why not *also* support a header that reads (note the singe slash):
> 
> 
>   NOTE: '\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX)
> 
> Whereby this second form only supports the folded line continuing on
> column 1 (no indents).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>