[rfc-i] How to indent artwork with surrounding block

pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu (Paul Kyzivat) Wed, 17 February 2016 16:14 UTC

From: pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu (Paul Kyzivat)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:14:55 -0500
Subject: [rfc-i] How to indent artwork with surrounding block
In-Reply-To: <56C41D5E.7050403@tzi.org>
References: <76FD8A33-4FE3-4333-8E7C-BE2E274C1D24@cisco.com> <970A412E-B227-420F-8EE7-611A228D93E1@vpnc.org> <56C3EFA0.9010208@gmail.com> <56C41744.9030405@gmx.de> <56C41D5E.7050403@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <56C49C7F.7050900@alum.mit.edu>

On 2/17/16 2:12 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> To be clear, are you assuming that tags like <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE
>>> ENDS>
>>> will continue to be inserted manually by individual authors, as part
>>> of the
>>> <sourcecode> text?
>>>
>>> I have no problem with that, but it needs to be explicit.
>>
>> I have a big problem with that, as it (a) defeats styling and (b) breaks
>> the code semantics. That's why I suggested a separate attribute for that
>> (see
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#ext-rfc2629.artwork).
>
> Generally these markers are extremely intrusive.
>
> There are also several drafts where an xpath expression of the form
>
> //artwork[@type='CDDL']/text()
>
> or similar is the defined way to generate the complete source code for
> the draft; having to add post processing to *remove* the <CODE BEGINS>
> etc. noise sounds nonsensically counterproductive.
>
> So, yes, the author needs to be in control.

ISTM that <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> is generally annoying to read 
and only needed if there aren't formatting clues to help distinguish 
code from text. So the formatting of <sourcecode> should largely 
eliminate the need.

If the author has a need to include some form of <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE 
ENDS> into the <sourcecode> then it ought to be formatted as a comment 
in the syntax of the code so that the extracted code will be valid.

	Thanks,
	Paul K