Re: [rfc-i] [xml2rfc] use of sourcecode type

Am 21.07.2020 um 17:10 schrieb Carsten Bormann:
> A similar problem is giving examples that are intentionally bad in order to demonstrate a kind of error.
>
> I typically tag them with a type that is derived from the one I would give for real code, e.g., “CDDLx” for a bad CDDL example.  I think it would be good to agree on some way to indicate this.
>
> A related problem is that often several code blocks combine to one valid instance of CDDL, for example see Figure 1, 2, 3 in RFC 8428.  There is no way to say that Figure 1 and 2 combine into a valid instance, and so do Figure 1 and 3, but not any other combination.
>
> And, by the way, those type tags are conventionally lower-cased, but this is not made very explicit; you have to infer that from the list in Section 2.48.4 of RFC 7991 or the RFC editor’s updated copy of that list:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt
>
> (Ha, this doesn’t even have “cddl” in it; I’m not sure how this is updated and whether there shouldn’t really be an IANA registry for these.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
> ...

Picking a somewhat random message here to reply to... :-)

There are multiple use cases to consider:

1) tagging for the purpose of validation

2) tagging for the purpose of syntax coloring
(<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#xml2rfc-ext-html-pretty-print>)

3) hightlighting that something is a "bad" example

(and maybe more)

re 1) it is quite common that ABNF is spread over multiple parts of the
document; each of these is supposed to be syntactically correct, but
would fail validation if that includes checking for undefined rules

re 2) it might be desirable to do syntax coloring even on incorrect input

re 3) might be nice to have some color to indicate that some example is
incorrect/discouraged (and yes, the color would need to be just an
additional hint)

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