Re: [rfc-i] [Rfc-markdown] 1.3.34: map most codeblock classes to <sourcecode> instead of <artwork>

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 22 February 2021 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B66B3A0BA0; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmx.net
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 dEssih2UAm-Z; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B063A0CE1; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E02F407A9; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EB1F407A9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eL7PFRWnwXkI for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91508F407A8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:14:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1613974448; bh=UqcfRdJMzoZXGGV3q2tDHP1IWHhw+cf/VajCbd/OQPQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=e4sD8Hx6OvCElj757TDrDNH/Noo3PhOqTA8d/AS+NvgH+AcGCv6it/8TA7+azrxaD IKYgduK7iJCv3KO6WxIizTFm4FkwCKTRZSH6+RsBYsdUg0/5K6ojABlYZkj0EbEl2t 6DvYTJcQo2hgZcUzr7qVG3hhO5ExUTAEK26eCUS0=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.182] ([91.61.48.1]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MAwXr-1l7DmQ4BXV-00BPJH; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:14:08 +0100
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
References: <4E1735EC-A5DD-4201-A6EA-2285D5CC9C21@tzi.org> <20210219072402.GA151175@miek.nl> <77684aa0-dcdb-fc38-8d31-86f2f5ae2ede@gmx.de> <22FFC094-63C4-43E8-8FDA-28832DD7FF28@tzi.org> <B8D57CFC-EB4A-4F7E-8614-99F39719183A@tzi.org> <E9362A07-0057-4DF0-B006-C45149F0FC82@ietf.org> <DA36EA61-F136-4C9F-9FA2-B9CBC24A6D7F@tzi.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <e1c5b6df-ef2c-34f7-50cd-1fa5933b2d69@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:14:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DA36EA61-F136-4C9F-9FA2-B9CBC24A6D7F@tzi.org>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:R8XfZbOKE/jcqPLKsisXJb3yrhXnaSE4PBPo0Q9kKYQCxLoyonT Z1iG4YEqDBu8G0oKg2coizdRBcIJUJFE+KsoOrR1nd02BRHW26N+3mpkSkrTWIGQ3a7K7y1 8LBp2LvO3fdtykGwhR5GGacL8wvNF+7BrPWdnsYkDGC7Dt8LE/njVBMiRbTv0L0XkbCWCIY silADJVtBUURQCVZVV3hQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:iesfm18BbZg=:n/vCBzilyEHGzwoc4l7hAF CR6JaFRDP9Ibyaui5mwsY1LAUV6WzI/lyZS4Co9x18RwFL2rgV1MDdNANoiq4tZGAPWLrlNV8 m5y6uGX2LmA7eKDEi4hUW6MqDOjjNRE06nwPgrhit5R8UXoRvvnOHWaHJbP/GKPTusnFkjxLO rSv0ApO//bXd9Fw+AZ4euVPVU60ekbicxaJe+nMB1O/u0KHpaNKazGmW38dfoOMxB6iq5L65c Z7P7scs2sBEBFh9WMplv3ONxhgSE3rdj/X5F3cyohWw0ZPJUKxltOcKGSxG7PmnEOZISqcIZY YwKipkxDk054UHwX079osqDwo8zq8ioYeqYdxRBfy6uuEWeFIzi8P1676ftExqwS/iCtFBtqt 1q/ViuLV7Ou9lCDbrWptjA8HToJ8FNXmMq/sJQh3Mkmwpd3KA1XTqfjzs/V5YZpqJ7d7p2d8n sO2SPXvS6VLSaP+gFwCRdAHnW8UZlmzJpt9jCgMLZ6D89o1SQM1rv2AXCiNH8fD0ldALY9wzU 0+kikfpTpS3RSLcQE6WYYZAkYxIX92w9V9TANYIWNX/Fv/NBhpgzaFpjFuD05H4JrfQO/E+Mh sFnIj7T7yb8zimTSfN8IVGTyrKz2KQMMN+GdAAOh9KeEsb+m3OMquxzz/BUJ7z5gOpP3hBk1p VF3nopfF6GSCSoKeidFdZUZ4I3hU2cIOie8lov715JmDzngVo90HhABmPdIddh64Qc2PiOdkk jZHB5ehBe48j1aBOFCLVIztAU0Aq787vkDokybXhu9Y8TmQmoTIxREPsMmRrbjRm9A6gVsTQr vRer8DJ/Mz5QsTywann9oz1CKJBqeUsbc1ktLbj6pv6MnR6pmQn8Q11QAb2pauS7njIZwVJRM nfyUDiTC9ydxqWta4XRA==
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Rfc-markdown] 1.3.34: map most codeblock classes to <sourcecode> instead of <artwork>
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RFC Interest Group <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Am 22.02.2021 um 01:38 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
> ...
> My criticism of the current grammar is that there are lots of arbitrary
> differences between different contexts in which things can be used, and
> these arbitrary differences seem to be driven by the combination of (1)
> a desire to enforce a weird perception of “good style” with (2) a lack
> of imagination.  Much less of this would probably have happened if the
> grammar had been properly factorized.  The grammar style to repeat
> everything everywhere seems to suggest one should endlessly tweak any
> single one of the clones so they are all subtly different, leading to
> the current jungle.
> ...

The grammar in RFC 7991 is using this style because it was inherited
from RFC 7749.

RFC 7749 uses this style because of me :-). It actually was the simplest
thing to do after automatic version from the old DTD. Furthermore, it
simplified coming up with the tooling which auto-generated large parts
of 7749 and 7791 from the actual grammar.

And no, the intention was not "endless tweaking". What happened (as I
said multiple times) is that RFC 7991 was published as a "snapshot" for
tools development, to be revised once implementation feedback came in.
That should have happened about three years ago.

Refactoring the grammar would indeed be interesting. I'm not concinved
though that the result will be better, as we might run into different
kinds of edge cases.

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