IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 28 July 2020 05:56 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 08C233A0CB4; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 yUNYaVde-slb; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:56:30 -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 167103A0CB3; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C93F40713; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:56:04 -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 0E5DFF40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
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 X9_X549iMDuN for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20945F40712 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.101] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BG5X51wzgzyXv; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:56:21 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <9f985d63-567f-18a8-f22a-01dd31230c45@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:56:19 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 617608579.378901-da7c58f7f333cea6c3a63be038e7f02b
Message-Id: <A831C270-9CC0-49C4-8A7C-C2686A8A9E31@tzi.org>
References: <a0456733-727d-1ea3-f017-3116614f0a7b@gmx.de> <884A4729-7E5F-44B5-8666-B12F98A9D525@tzi.org> <9f985d63-567f-18a8-f22a-01dd31230c45@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [xml2rfc] use of sourcecode type
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-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 2020-07-28, at 05:29, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> And if we establish a micro syntax for the prose production (essentially
> implementing include functionality), we might even get further.

Now we are talking.

As I said in another thread, we need to solve the problem for CDDL anyway (which now can contain ABNF <draft-bormann-cbor-cddl-control-01>), so maybe we can target coming up with something that will work for ABNF on its own as well (not necessarily exactly the same solution).

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
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