[rfc-i] extensions for <artwork> and friends

[julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)]

Hi there,

in addition to the stuff we're already discussing (indentation, 
<example>, an attribute to trigger insertion of "<CODE BEGINS>"...), I 
have a few other requirements that I'd like to present.

Note that all of these require allowing markup inside <artwork> (and 
friends). Also note that all of these have been implemented in 
rfc2629.xslt as custom extensions.

1) Ability to highlight a part of artwork.

Example: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5987.html#rfc.section.4.2> 
(here: bold)

Documentation: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#ext.element.highlight>

2) Ability to make part of artwork the target of a link.

Example: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#grammar.address>, linked 
from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#rfc.section.2.2.p.3>

Documentation: none currently, essentially done by allowing a <span> 
element inside <artwork>, and allowing that <span> element to carry an 
anchor attribute.

3) Ability to style part of artwork for syntax highlighting.

Example: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#schema>

4) Ability to have index entries for things occurring in artwork.

Example: entries in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#rfc.index.A>

5) Ability to include <xref>s in artwork.

Example: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#uri>

6) Ability to hyperlink within ABNF (and similar types of artwork).

Example: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#http.uri>


FAQ:

a) Does this interfere with automatic extraction of source code?

No, it does not. The artwork extractor just needs to stick to the text 
content of the element. (Implementation: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#extract-artwork>

b) Does this interfere with automatic syntax highlighting through JS (in 
case we want do do that)?

Not necessarily; for instance, <https://github.com/google/code-prettify> 
deals with this properly.

Best regards, Julian