Re: [rfc-i] line wrapping in XML

> On 30 Oct 2020, at 11:52 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> When editing a source document (especially Markdown), many people seem
>> to find it best to NOT line-wrap paragraphs, so that diffs (e.g., on
>> GitHub) are minimal; otherwise re-wrapping causes a lot of noise in
>> diffs during the WG process.
> 
> Yup.
> I like once line per sentence though.
> I used to make my XML and my markdown all pretty, but I stopped once I taught
> my editor to make it pretty as I type.

Exactly.

>> When an XML document goes to the RFC Editor, it will be line-wrapped
>> (apparently manually). This causes difficulties in creating an XML diff
>> from the source document to the one that's being offered for approval
>> -- something that I feel is necessary, given that XML is now the
>> canonical format.
> 
> When you say that they get wrapped, does it just the wrap long lines to
> multiple lines, or does it put lines together which are in different
> sentences? To take the above paragraph, do we get:
> 
>> When an XML document goes to the RFC Editor, it will be line-wrapped
>> (apparently manually). This causes difficulties in creating an XML diff
>> from the source document to the one that's being offered for approval
>> -- something that I feel is necessary, given that XML is now the
>> canonical format.
> 
> or:
> 
>> When an XML document goes to the RFC Editor, it will be line-wrapped
>> (apparently manually).
>> This causes difficulties in creating an XML diff from the source
>> document to the one that's being offered for approval -- something that
>> I feel is necessary, given that XML is now the canonical format.

E.g., 

      <t>Specifying the syntax of new HTTP header (and trailer) fields is an onerous task; even with the guidance in <xref target="RFC7231" section="8.3.1" format="default"/>, there are many decisions -- and pitfalls -- for a prospective HTTP field author.</t>
      <t>Once a field is defined, bespoke parsers and serializers often need to be written, because each field value has a slightly different handling of what looks like common syntax.</t>

becomes

      <t>Specifying the syntax of new HTTP header (and trailer) fields is an
      onerous task; even with the guidance in <xref target="RFC7231" section="8.3.1"/>, there are many decisions -- and
      pitfalls -- for a prospective HTTP field author.</t>
      <t>Once a field is defined, bespoke parsers and serializers often need
      to be written, because each field value has a slightly different handling
      of what looks like common syntax.</t>

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

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