Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-02

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,


>>   When a larger document contains multiple instances of text content
>>   that may need to be folded or unfolded, it is assumed that another
>>   process inserts/extracts the individual text content instances to/
>>   from the larger document prior to utilizing the algorithms described
>>   in this section.  For example, the `xiax` utility [xiax] does this.
> 
> Well, again I don't really understand why we need to assume _anything_
> about how the author decides to implement this format.

removed the word "assumed", now text reads:

   When a larger document contains multiple instances of text content
   that may need to be folded or unfolded, another process must insert/
   extract the individual text content instances to/from the larger
   document prior to utilizing the algorithms described in this section.
   For example, the `xiax` utility [xiax] does this.



> I would just remove this paragraph.

This paragraph and others like it were added by others that thought that this algorithm was intended to process an entire I-D or RFC.



> On second thought, this text doesn't have to mention when SBS can't be
> used.

Okay, not changed.




>>> o  7.2.1
>>> 
>>> I don't understand why there is a min limit of 46 characters for
>>> folding to work.  If the only reason is for the non-normative script
>>> to be able to center the header line, then I think this limitation
>>> should be removed.  (I would even prefer less flexibility in the
>>> header line syntax...)
>> 
>> This is because we never defined how to handle folding the header
>> itself.  I wrote about this a while back and no-one seemed bothered by
>> the limitation.  The effort/value ration isn't there.  The need to
>> fold less than 69-characters is unlikely, and less than 46-characters
>> seems even more so.
> 
> IMO we could remove this arbitrary limitaion and still leave the
> header alone.

Not arbitrary, as explained, leaving as is.




>>> o  7.2.1 / 7.2.2
>>> 
>>> I don't think the text should assume that folding/unfolding is
>>> "automated".
>> 
>> Both sections clearly state that authors may do the equivalent
>> manually, or do you mean that the word "automated" in these sections
>> isn't adding much value and could/should be removed?
> 
> Right:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>   Folding is assumed to be automated although authors may perform the
>   folding steps manually.
> 
>   Determine the desired maximum line length from input to the automated
>   line-wrapping process,
> 
> NEW:
> 
>   Determine the desired maximum line length from input to the
>   line-wrapping process,

Fixed (in 8.2.1 also)

You supplied text for 7.2.1, but also mentioned 7.2.2 (and ~ 8.2.2) originally.   For these sections, the appropriate change is to remove the first paragraph, which I did (in my local copy).   Specifically:

OLD:

   All unfolding is assumed to be automated although a reader will
   mentally perform the act of unfolding the text to understand the true
   nature of the original text content.

NEW:

    <deleted>



Kent // author