Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc-dev] [xml2rfc] <br> is back, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.32.0

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

On 2019-10-18 16:49, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
> 
>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 15:04, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Signed PGP part
>> 
>> On 2019-10-18 13:33, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 12:36, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I note that there is one XML in AUTH48 using this (RFC 8668), so this
>>>> really is a bit pressing.
>> 
>> All of the entity references used during the RPC work are converted to
>> unicode code points when the prepped file is produced.  If you see an
>> entity reference in a prepped file it's either a bug or it has been added
>> manually.
> 
> I think that was what Julian was afraid of: Having U+2028 in an
> immutable published RFC.

I'd be more than happy to move to <br/> if we could make that useful for
the RPC.

I think most people who voiced an viewpoint on that was for making it
generally available, but when I proposed how to do that, it seemed to
run into opposition again.

>>> This uses a &br; entity reference — we can easily change that entity into
>>> “<br />” later without touching the XML file :-)
>>> 
>>> (I’m not finding the “rfc2629-xhtml.ent”, so maybe that already is the case.)
>> 
>> It’s been in the xml2rfc distribution for ages.  
> 
> I have 424 files with that name on my laptop.

I'm sorry.  I took the 'I’m not finding the “rfc2629-xhtml.ent”' at face
value.  And yes, it has been changing, it has not been static over time.
I'm sorry if I gave that impression.  I only wanted to point at how it
has been made available.

> These fall into the following equivalence classes (grouped by md5sum):
> 
>  316 1205eb5efbbc8d9a734ba77055388d70
>   88 1aa6d2431ef0219b231913c8fb3c9253
>    2 234420ff1ceb61201fa41655b841513a
>    3 46cad1ba9b921fe41a9102e912073d74
>    2 7a013cd802f0df7e3d9000cd85b9749f
>    2 a66a1389336402406e917908aa6e3255
>    8 cc77bb83d0c9c7c19afd2da03140f1b7
>    3 d2faa8069ff9e2ef2c7c097d2e17cbad
> 
> Of these, I find these in xml2rfc:
> 
>   22 1205eb5efbbc8d9a734ba77055388d70
>    2 234420ff1ceb61201fa41655b841513a
>    2 a66a1389336402406e917908aa6e3255
>    8 cc77bb83d0c9c7c19afd2da03140f1b7
> 
> I didn’t diff all these combinations against each other, but one recent change seems to be:
> 
> <!-- Typographic help characters -->
> <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;"><!-- U+232A RIGHT-POINTING ANGLE BRACKET        -->
> <!ENTITY br     "&#8232;"><!-- U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR                      -->
> <!ENTITY wj     “&#8288;"><!-- U+2060 WORD JOINER                         -->
> 
> And more recently:
> 
> <!-- Typographic help characters -->
> <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;"><!-- U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE                    -->
> <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;"><!-- U+2011 NON BREAKING HYPHEN                 -->
> <!ENTITY br     "&#8232;"><!-- U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR                      -->
> <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;"><!-- U+2060 WORD JOINER                         -->
> 
>> If it's desired to make it
>> more widely available, I’m sure we could do that.
> 
> I was looking for a statement about the definitive source (and thus the definitive version), not a 425th copy…
> 
> (It also should be put into the RFC-editor’s /authors directory, so that the authoring-RFCXMLv3 files there can be validated.)

Agreed.

	Henrik