Re: [rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 22:19 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 1720312944F for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 qu3Wty89oFd0 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:47 -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 4A494129441 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0AAB81728; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:46 -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 72DBFB81728 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 xAzy2EtU7A55 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50A70B81726 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 56283 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2016 22:19:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2016 22:19:45 -0000
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 22:19:19 -0000
Message-ID: <20161202221919.7465.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <dcf267f7-a40c-bb7a-6511-5b7bfa99862f@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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>
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>

>>> 1. You have some embedded code fragments. Is it your intention that these will
>>> still be visibly marked <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>?
>> 
>> As far as I know, those markings are optional, right?
>
>Not exactly. And they aren't our choice - they are defined in the IETF Trust
>legal provisions:
>
>>>> License to Code Components.

>>>> Identification. Text in IETF Contributions and IETF Documents of the types
>>>> identified in Section 4.a above shall constitute “Code Components”. In addition,
>>>> any text found between the markers <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>, or otherwise
>>>> clearly labeled as a Code Component, shall be considered a “Code Component”.
>
>So regardless of what would be most elegant in XML2RFCv3, authors must be able
>to include these labels explicitly.

I see the phrase "or otherwise clearly labeled as a Code Component"
which suggests to me that we don't have to use the ugly bracket things
if the document says something like all the blocks of fixed pitch text
are code components.  They're still coded in the XML so mechanical
extraction is no problem.

For that matter, I'd argue that since the XML is the canonical format,
the XML code markings clearly label the code and we're done.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest