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

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Wed, 17 February 2016 20:17 UTC

From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:17:16 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] How to indent artwork with surrounding block
In-Reply-To: <96A3BB9B-D18D-4D8D-8AA8-A5824C7EEF3E@vpnc.org>
References: <76FD8A33-4FE3-4333-8E7C-BE2E274C1D24@cisco.com> <970A412E-B227-420F-8EE7-611A228D93E1@vpnc.org> <56C3EFA0.9010208@gmail.com> <A2D5E0B4-9BE7-4166-BC17-EA078C938C97@att.com> <56C480A6.9060509@gmx.de> <56C483B4.6070002@tzi.org> <8A4B09EE-D1D6-4128-A841-74FE0A71B8D2@att.com> <ABE4C6E5-FF69-4597-8C92-1C6728E0F1A3@vpnc.org> <56C4998E.5000905@gmx.de> <96A3BB9B-D18D-4D8D-8AA8-A5824C7EEF3E@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <56C4D54C.7070808@gmx.de>

On 2016-02-17 21:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2016, at 8:02, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> I'm not completely sure how
>>
>> a) the need to identify code that should be surrounded with "<CODE
>> BEGINS>" / "<CODE ENDS>", and
>>
>> b) the desire to distinguish between artwork (like diagrams), source
>> code (such as ABNF), and examples (such as protocol messages)
>>
>> relate to each other. Could you elaborate?
>
> As others have said, (a) is not a real need. Given that, the desire in
> (b) might exist for some people but is not a requirement.

Ahem. Brian just disagreed with you about (a). So did Joe.

>> IMHO: the trust grants certain extra rights for the use of "code
>> components". To qualify as such, the specific text either needs to be
>> in a white-listed language (and that white-list is being revised from
>> time to time), or clearly marked as such. *One* way to do so is to
>> insert the "<CODE BEGINS>" / "<CODE ENDS>" brackets.
>>
>> To me this indicates that it would be good to have a flag on
>> <sourcecode> which triggers exactly that; it would allow the display
>> of the brackets in formats other than TXT to be less intrusive.
>
> That is one interpretation of the trust statements; clearly, there are
> many others. That is the basis for me wanting to wait for the Trust to
> tell us what is needed instead of us guessing.

There may be other interpretations, but I think those would be 
incorrect. With all due respect, what you say is a bit hand-waivy ;-)

Best regards, Julian