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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 04 March 2019 16:04 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 9F56B12F1AC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 08:04:29 -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 m0O3XnVIdmPG for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 08:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931BE12F1A2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 08:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B3D51AE0118; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 17:04:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 17:04:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20190304.170423.167423260282534149.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kent+ietf@watsen.net
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016949647f53-8a4d372a-c576-4489-a1e5-b885c6510a1f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <85b4bfc8-1d55-8df2-98b2-85e685996309@cisco.com> <20190304.132926.1893685857666021666.mbj@tail-f.com> <0100016949647f53-8a4d372a-c576-4489-a1e5-b885c6510a1f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/xPNfXnbEcAgLqMki8dNNDL0UHFk>
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 16:04:30 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > But note that figures in RFCs are normally indented with 3 spaces
> > (they _can_ be outdented, if the lines are long enough).
> 
> 
> The days of scraping from plain-text RFCs are over [1].  Extracting,
> if needed at all, should be from the XML, where there are no such
> issues. Extracting from the plain-text output makes about as much
> sense as extracting from the HTML or PDF outputs.

I am confused.  Are you saying that the unfolding algorithm only is
supposed to work on data extracted from the XML version of the I-D or
RFC?  If so, I think this needs to be clarified in the draft.


> Lossless extractions are critical for formal verifications (e.g.,
> doctor reviews, shepherd reviews, AUTH48 reviews).  Both the
> double-backslash approach we currently have, and the single-backslash
> approach we had originally (where the continuation-line begins on
> column 1, as it has been in programming languages for decades) provide
> lossless extractions.

... as does the single-backslash with leading space removal.


/martin



> 
> The double-backslash approach is ideal for when pretty-indents are
> desired.  The single-backslash approach is ideal for when the
> pretty-indents are not needed.  Both are completely valid and useful.
> My contention is that we unnecessarily threw out one when reaching for
> the other.
> 
> [1] https://pypi.org/project/xiax
> 
> Kent