IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] t with indent

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 21:36 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 76BF93A0B08; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:36:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=o62tAORN; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=bAcF7CKZ
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 BgfD1TPpyhXZ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:35:59 -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 373C03A098A; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:35:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2987F406D1; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:35:29 -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 BB31EF406D1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:35:28 -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=iecc.com header.b=o62tAORN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=bAcF7CKZ
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 g2Y1fDwkYaaG for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9825AF406C6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 13:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7856 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2020 21:35:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=1ead.5feba137.k2012; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=4IsOcoVXjv81lwXZbgDaedDoNji788EPjLLL5QHfZy0=; b=o62tAORNjI+fkZy1guoDZ4DlPWHfeuVvn3KxID6JVUQBlcf+7uvwg4b+ObwP4Gp98OMqOZaZOeyaoea6bUmZbuzne0I8KiCrSTJ+JSOHxp4rbIy41XsNZ5FeCG4ao+tJiU8NuJQ2xIRvIU9kfrBXHvkWqxkabssCUjylj81TIHh58+vuGxI3DswJnb7eGhg+sm5cu+T//8YpBrxkUOSqcMLHCb8oluUGOQ1nX2TgXXltQELocI8B1VTij5j/Q4P2xCk2S5s0vquAd2SfvCjYrL0WBDjkL6Px/7xIPsaDJkJEJBRtWNidCqaKk67qEQ1wV80qD1fthDRTli2/sprPHg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=1ead.5feba137.k2012; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=4IsOcoVXjv81lwXZbgDaedDoNji788EPjLLL5QHfZy0=; b=bAcF7CKZWwpvtebu5SiT66NJIEc0gLzFIm5EcMC/We0ooiGGBHccVrvZUiBn2EgNhYYOJCi6T2euC8wbWMYZFZn10k7VcpBFeuh0aofb/9YswAizbKw0LpXRqz7ttU3xd/5nOX9PKblxA38HpLXcAqV69iZptGwKTbOp19CH8FqUDKFa6ajiFACXzS4To8lMSjiWgOS5Ve+4ypJG9a28p7KXVazGti3m+rmrAII2ssiwe8n6CzRf9TQlWjAko2Kx5rrKiar5b+rgE4appeU04bvBx/W4ehgAcip0qTNw7tBkreu3vljOL91aofLYt6hVyYELTq4CCBSDjr0JYupEMQ==
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 29 Dec 2020 21:35:50 -0000
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:35:50 -0500
Message-ID: <a7c58fc2-d342-12b6-8894-01599faef@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOQZBaiJ3vfSOL79bv60g1vR8+LCNNsYVg001EXPu+TSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBOvxuD0pnWrkcywcKBMsd4CuCrLB4YkmDStpwh7e-SkSA@mail.gmail.com> <20201229204714.0FB903511F3C@ary.qy> <CABcZeBOQZBaiJ3vfSOL79bv60g1vR8+LCNNsYVg001EXPu+TSg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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-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>

On Tue, 29 Dec 2020, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> If someone can find consistent semantics in the thousand fake indents
>> I wouldn't be opposed to adding semantic tags (even retroactively) but
>> I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Well, I certainly don't think all of them will have the same semantics.
> Rather,
> what I would expect is that the majority fall into a relatively small number
> of buckets. We'd then need to go and look to see whether it was worth
> having a typographical feature like this for the remainder or whether
> we could just live with suboptimal typesetting in those cases -- it's not
> like it would be the first time our typesetting was suboptimal!

Sounds like a good project for someone, but I'm not volunteering at this 
point.

>> The default is zero so I agree that there's no need to indicate zero
>> indents.
>>
>
> That seems like a good start. What's the process for doing that? Based on
> Julian's note it sounds like this is a requirement documented somewhere.

It's in RFC 7998:

5.2.  Defaults

    These steps will ensure that all default values have been filled in
    to the XML, in case the defaults change at a later date.  Steps in
    this section will not overwrite existing values in the input file.

In retrospect, we should have flipped it around and said that the XML 
default values aren't going to change.  There's a lot of stuff in RFCs 
7991 to 7998 that has turned out to be a poor match for practice.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email