Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

Am 02.12.2020 um 13:22 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
>>>
>>> <contact/> has only been added to <section/> (block-level) and <t/>, not to <li/>, which has its own copy of the content model of <t/>. There are a few more elements like <name/>, <blockquote/>, <dt/>, <dd/>, <xref/>, <cref/>, <tt/>, <strong/>, <em/>, <sub/>, <sup/>, <preamble/>, <postamble/>, <th/>, <td/>, <annotation/>, <refcontent/> that need this fix.
>>
>> On the other hand it's not clear at all, whether *contact* information
>> is needed in all of these places (I do agree with <li>, and there's
>> already a ticket about that:
>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/519>, opened
>> seven months ago).
>
> As long as (span level) <contact/> is our only way to have the name of a person:
>
> <section><name>History: the <contact fullname=“Gössner”/> draft
>
> <blockquote>We have implemented <contact fullname=“Gössner”/>’s original specification but ran into
>
> <dt><contact fullname=“Gössner”/> interpretation:
>
> <dd>This interpretation differs from the original proposal by <contact fullname=“Gössner”/> in that
>
> <xref target=“https://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/”>Original <contact fullname=“Gössner”/> draft</xref>
>
> (Stopping here; similar obvious cases can easily be found for all the other elements.)
>
> All these could occur in a future version of draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath or a similar document.
>
> Proof by lack of imagination is rarely the best guidance :-)
>
> Grüße, Carsten

And it helps to have concrete examples.

I will stick with my opinion that <contact> should be reverted to its
original definition (block content, for formatting similar as authors),
and that we should just allow non-ASCII in prose (with the production
center having an eye an abuse).

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest