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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 05 October 2019 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810E3120832; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 07:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 sLKI5qDnqGis; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 07:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B0DA12082A; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 07:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (162-227-17-255.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net [162.227.17.255]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x95EjnnB024811 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 5 Oct 2019 07:45:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 162-227-17-255.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net [162.227.17.255] claimed to be [192.168.1.89]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 07:46:38 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <4A8A7913-A57D-4554-8AE8-AAEB921BD1E3@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <f00a671a-6fe4-f5ae-2582-0b78ffa1c256@gmx.de>
References: <E1iGMu9-00055y-Ui@durif.tools.ietf.org> <8304e61d-c550-91ea-9e23-eef2cd31240b@gmx.de> <A3513970-EEB0-4DBD-9E6F-A87EBFAF886D@att.com> <de4feaff-8f71-cd38-545c-2d848749251b@levkowetz.com> <f00a671a-6fe4-f5ae-2582-0b78ffa1c256@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/6C9yAXSCQiG66gU3ZDf4SQyoUxw>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc-dev] <br> is back, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.32.0
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <rfc-markdown.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-markdown/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 14:46:41 -0000

On 4 Oct 2019, at 9:29, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 04.10.2019 17:34, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm strongly for having an explicit <br/> element.
>>
>> Given a clearly expressed need from the RPC, I will always try to 
>> provide
>> tools to make it possible for them to do their work.  Without having 
>> <br/>
>> available, this was a fallback solution.  Continuing to ignore 
>> clearly
>> expressed needs of the RPC seems unproductive.
>> ...
>
> I would like the RPC to actually raise these issues here, so that we 
> can
> discuss them.

A big +1 to this. Otherwise, we will get solutions like the one just 
implemented that go against standards guidance like using U+2028, which 
is deprecated.

> In this case, I'd really like to understand in which contexts this was
> considered to be needed.

Yes, that.

> And no, nobody is proposing to ignore the RPC.

We can't ignore them if we can't hear them.

--Paul Hoffman