IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] <blockquote> within <dd>

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 15:57 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 23C913A11DE; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=mozilla.com
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 6Gx35DU-5T_F; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
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 BABE63A11DB; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0760F40786; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
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 6DF16F40786 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.com
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 b3a8TEiHDiso for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x142.google.com (mail-il1-x142.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::142]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA113F40785 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x142.google.com with SMTP id j12so7517204ils.4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BT82SY4FGdFqSlRV3x42q77Pdox4j5OqPY0Gr2ekq10=; b=f/lN0Fmp52xW27twAFSf5Op0wkx7MR2fxljvhujlGgT5Kr7X8lCd7gFI3DrqvbIa6N dbBzA+ln+0llTz9qyO4GiPwiH76AotGlPHLnRaaMEBVupceacmZbip31VLjAlxE3dBvd 4gMq4K+Af3VwreIMkXwm9KcnhG6907w04sMyI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BT82SY4FGdFqSlRV3x42q77Pdox4j5OqPY0Gr2ekq10=; b=gtG8vN/ygvwBbZiK7pmGMs8kH7kJzFwdYTCEkutASDIz6w17ZPyF4YQfW0v2LfbDhG vkvnQyYHsfB5RrEtVgt4pZgI/Tvemxedi2v8yszOKHqSlC+DGK5aPGQ5wurLsrBysyTv aiimFQPbB9/4w+Y8FBO3SyvlSxX837jqMaDp16uKm6dXrRPm08RdzgUHar6/EJqCgYTY aH7VbU7+I+ktsvpBorG8vJDiWEJwA23197xg/Wr7Q2mJwDtuK5FCu8uI0QUhNwmG9hle SqUIJaLcPcYWtc8P7r8C4YmwGDUECiZzPfRRB/w7oCS59+OF9LzHI/xDIDGrKjTHycRK r/XQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306ayrkJu0583KcJh4qFtqauCTiMdpHLSHh3ziQwIVJG7CRHGhq jdXk5gdW72f3SEd8jo2dj3trSJzxIaLnkOoS
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyX6MaPjnXfU/G0lwVF/yRss4d3uDyUs91Ho+TMfxwp4/eq+Imsm8HXnNrVbjj68dlh0MaPEA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:190a:: with SMTP id w10mr23350013ilu.1.1619625466151; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dragon.local (c-73-78-113-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.78.113.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h11sm56938ilr.84.2021.04.28.08.57.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <355e22da-8868-c548-4199-1c427fd8b67f@mozilla.com> <DBDB1CA9-C1E1-46D4-AD46-7EF34798EB7D@tzi.org>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <e3c40646-acd3-68d5-d5b5-df74f31b63a9@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:57:44 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DBDB1CA9-C1E1-46D4-AD46-7EF34798EB7D@tzi.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] <blockquote> within <dd>
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 <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 4/27/21 8:12 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 28. Apr 2021, at 02:10, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> At https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/570 there's a
>> discussion about allowing <blockquote> within <dd>. Do folks here have
>> opinions on whether this is useful?
> 
> Trac is down right now, but somehow I don’t remember that ticket as a “discussion”.

Thus the impetus to post to this list.

> Beyond the specific example Paul contributed, it is more generally useful to have a grammar that is not a maze of accidental omissions.
> 
> It is impossible to write tools operating on RFCXML if every single potential combination of elements is individually weighed as to their potential usefulness, and then possibly ruled out due do what can only be described as “proof by lack of imagination”.
> 
> Thanks for creating https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/200 — is that expired I-D now being revived and becoming the focal point where we collect RFCXMLv3 issues?

That is the plan. Currently the XML change management team is still
working through a large backlog of issues in both Trac and GitHub, but
we should be done with that soon and then can start updating 7991bis.

Peter

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email