Re: [rfc-i] t with indent

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 20:39 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 9F61E3A09C5; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 F5CL8K5lzEFJ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:53 -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 EBC1B3A09C3; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE796F4070D; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:23 -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 7703DF4070D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 P_pb6ogEmzJn for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFECEF406F3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id m25so33347716lfc.11 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Gjf9g9/7Tcjh0CqGSFjE7ZZCpjAvMq3fzFbSb6O0LoA=; b=IeBECkN3UEmmKPI8HdREebdrz9Ysfsy7F0xT35Bed4ZRe56EOAhA0P1tT1lF3ySJjp zhfj5pt2rnLp6Y6RmAc0RApu4SYgTk/uXdsRGwSDB0YCHVgJ3oqq6lpMJQaQrCCrcUS8 YwqkuuWvvEfjg2WCe34wnVFci0XRhUrKKoPobrg0/2sP+tbFuWkbkio8GRoMGy2EjWiO BqU8vfrkc8bPatkwIgQqUzBF7POn2AzDCqxcYpxh3aHhPdh3UOSbNf0Lae85W6XiTMkV /pVfI3C9SP44BaP8oPUfNHkMFlt1rCXO2hAPIT0ekz/l1jND3utwqsq47LSqz+cKQMYs gWFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Gjf9g9/7Tcjh0CqGSFjE7ZZCpjAvMq3fzFbSb6O0LoA=; b=kftLWQjUqO+LMAgB1sQ+iKl2pNOk/lyBgqQamNrA8P8SrTnxw+tt+0We/SVv7Zwl+J Jm1x/x3QMz2LkuXtfCsCkfcushb0Onzebahq3inuf3FgkY5jo2p/2/BxdYPq1KS6MXBx yU9/0VbXxDvXpcDrNXY/iIXEyXpURkoTZtluOqlQrK9OANxJ7tWuqWDENOMynMnKzu1T obTBravOjS4uZamNx4wfFiWs9lsKM7D5sfowScIWNB5UsR3dmNmgnZAPbwF84WaJK0UU zJY4z47Lid8rZpgM6A42FfPqGIn6PIBEYyGyG6iGj0XX0LamLa3pQB1WBL4fCkwdkIox ay1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fSXnqxKkR0P2Pgmulb/C3+cZXpmnaxBqKnvNXDcnYZ1gEKOa/ 1DrO/TdqibJ2zaVOcTLtn1mV9p768WbBSAB8CFaiww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyIhoNOey6KPctDHmIzl+2KA4gjvtfRz09Tnj75aBWAXbeHCN2kn3BTyUC5YCba7X5nm8bkYVD15M8YPq1GEhE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9f53:: with SMTP id v19mr23910842ljk.109.1609274384527; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABcZeBOvxuD0pnWrkcywcKBMsd4CuCrLB4YkmDStpwh7e-SkSA@mail.gmail.com> <6551e660-83e3-eb1b-0ac1-bce0d15bcdad@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <6551e660-83e3-eb1b-0ac1-bce0d15bcdad@gmx.de>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:39:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP0CNLjC1bJebn6_4tgOa7sU02Ck_QA38W8dQFnTRnBvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] t with indent
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3646626757280835157=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:39 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> Am 29.12.2020 um 20:08 schrieb Eric Rescorla:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > In doing Auth48 for RFC8844 I noticed that each <t> block in the final
> > XML seems too contain an "indent" attribute, as in:
> >
> >     <t indent="0" pn="section-2-5">
> >
> > While I see that the current v3 grammar seems to allow "indent" under
> > <t>, this doesn't seem to be in draft-iab-rfc7991bis, so it's not
> > quite clear what purpose it's intended for. This seems to raise two
> > questions:
>
> FWIW, it seems to be a fairly recent addition
> (<
> https://github.com/mnot/v3grammar/commit/20ccb12dc9d4b308f025c17aa3c8dcf8dbfb0ab2
> >).
>
> > First, do we really want this kind of layout-specific markup rather
> > than semantic markup? Searching for <t> with indent != 0 in the
> > published RFCs, I see the following cases:
> >
> > - RFC 8907, S. 6.2 -- a definition list nested in another definition list
> >
> > - RFC 8916, S. 5 -- a definition list indented under a hed (arguably
> >                      another nested definition list)
> >
> > - RFC 8919 S 7.3 -- a set of Note: values introduced by a sentence
> >                      ending in a colon
> >
> > - RFC 8934 S 4.2.2 -- an equation
> >
> > - RFC 8949 S 8 -- an equation
> >
> > It seems like we might be better served here by introducing some new
> > semantic constructs. Both nested definition lists and equations are
> > natural structures that would benefit from consistent layout (note:
> > it's possible that nested definition lists already exist; it wasn't
> > quite clear to me from the grammar). RFC 8919 is kind of an edge:
>
> <dt> can contain <dl>, so yes, a definition inside a definition list can
> contain another definition list.
>

Great.

> one could probably model it as a definition list or one could just
> > live with the Notes not being indented.
>
> The example IMHO clearly should be a <blockquote> (which will get
> indentation), as it cites text from the IANA registry:
>

Good point



> > Second, even assuming that <t indent=...> is a good thing, it seems
> > suboptimal to have it attached to every paragraph in the XML. Is
> > there a reason why it can't simply be omitted when it is set to
> > the modal value of "0"?
> > ...
>
> That's a requirement for the preptool, see
> <
> https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7998.html#attribute-default-value-insertion
> >:
>
> "Fill in any default values for attributes on elements, except
> "keepWithNext" and "keepWithPrevious" of <t>, and "toc" of <section>.
> Some default values can be found in the RELAX NG schema, while others
> can be found in the prose describing the elements in [RFC7991]."
>
> (FWIW, I disagreed with that requirement)
>

Ugh. What's the process to reconsider that requirement? It just seems like
clutter.

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