[rfc-i] A couple of formatting bits in v3

"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Thu, 19 December 2019 19:44 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 732D2120D41 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 3cPBLsjjOhQM for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:54 -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 B1BFD120D2A for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7C8F4073B; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:34 -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 334B9F4073B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:34 -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 sxt5y1nD2OhR for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B233F4073A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A62981FC43 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:44:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gHK7n9mymB9q for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:44:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [172.16.1.10] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CDFF981FC38 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:44:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:43:41 -0600
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <24BE38F5-CBBB-4226-B30E-A91436D591F0@episteme.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rfc-i] A couple of formatting bits in v3
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

After talking to a couple of people, these are probably simply feature 
requests for v3.1 or the like, so I figured best to float them to the 
list:

1. I've been updating RFC 5322. I've got some artwork, specifically 
example e-mail messages, that needs to be clearly delineated from the 
surrounding text. When 5322 was published, the RFC editor used:

		<?rfc artworkdelimiter="&#45;&#45;&#45;&#45;"?>

and then I put in a little note saying, "In the text version, these are 
separated by '----'." What would be a sane way to accomplish something 
similar in v3? Obviously the processing instructions aren't desirable. I 
don't really want to put the "----" into the artwork itself because the 
HTML and PDF output looks just fine; the artwork in those versions has a 
grey background that is clearly separate from the body of the document, 
but the text version doesn't have any obvious separators. Making it 
<sourcecode> and using "<CODE STARTS>" / "<CODE ENDS>" seems kind of 
wrong for this case. Perhaps this would be some sort of additional 
attribute for <artwork>. Any thoughts?

2. I've got a definition list that is defined as <dl newline="false" 
spacing="compact">. When rendered, there's no punctuation between the 
term and the definition. I'd really like to put a colon after each term. 
Normally in HTML, I'd do that with CSS:

		dt::after {
		  content: ": ";
		}

I could, of course, put the colon and space at the end of the term, but 
that violates my obsessive sense of semantic correctness. ;-) Any ideas 
on how to best accomplish this in xml2rfc?

If these are just feature requests, is there some proper place (github? 
tracker? email to rse?) to document them?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest