Re: [netmod] WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 17/01/2018 07:43, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> +1 to (2) as preference, followed by (1).  I don't think (3) is needed
>> here.  The purpose is to make this human-readable and provide readers
>> a good sense of the overall structure.  The authoritative
>> specification is still the .yang itself.  Providing some guidance for
>> how to represent the tree is good but let's not over-engineer this; I
>> believe retaining some flexibility is good.
> The last sentence summarizes my personal view.  I prefer (1), followed
> by (2).
OK, so the "Providing some guidance for how to represent the tree is 
good" is along the lines of what I was thinking for the "algorithm" 
would be for 2.

E.g. something along the lines of:
"Arbitrary whitespace is allowed between any of the whitespace separated 
fields (e.g. <opts> and <type>).  Additional whitespace may be used to 
column align fields (e.g. within a list or container) to improve 
readability".

But just saying implementations can use arbitrary whitespace is also 
fine with me.  I certainly err on the side of not being overly 
prescriptive on this ..

I'm not really a fan of the comparing tree output as a method of 
verifying a YANG parser idea.

Thanks,
Rob


>
>
> /martin
>
>> --- Alex
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>> ...
>>>> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?  I can see three
>>>> alternatives:
>>>>
>>>>     1) allow any number of addtional spaces
>>>>     2) allow any number of addtional spaces + define a suggested
>>>>        alignment algorithm
>>>>     3) mandate the alignment algorithm
>>> Definition of symbols should be precise/consistent, so that readers
>>> can
>>> consistently interpret tree diagrams.
>>>
>>> I think that flexibility in layout should be OK, but the draft should
>>> provide
>>> guideline to ensure the output is readable, and likely to be broadly
>>> consistent
>>> (since consistency aids readability).
>>>
>>> If the IETF data modeling group is trying to specify text output
>>> precisely
>>> enough that it can be screen scraped then we may want to consider
>>> whether
>>> we are focusing on the right solution ;-)
>>>
>>> In summary, (2) is my preference, followed by (1), followed by (3).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>>
>>>> /martin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>