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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sandy,

One question, below:

On 2019-10-18 19:33, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> On 18.10.2019 18:05, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2019-10-18 17:49, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 16:54, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> There were some questions about line-breaking in titles in general
>>>> (whether <br/> or U+2028).
>>>> 
>>>> I think that there is wide consensus about using <br/> in favor of
>>>> U+2028.
>>>> 
>>>> The fact that unlike the former, the latter is not visible in the
>>>> schemas makes U+2028 a great way to cheat around the consensus. We
>>>> should not do that.
>>>> 
>>>> As in the question about restricting Unicode character sets, I
>>>> believe that — as long as the vocabulary has a meaning — the schema
>>>> (mechanism) is not the place to make restrictions based on beauty,
>>>> style etc. (policy). So I would prefer to have <br/> in the places in
>>>> the schema where it has well-defined semantics. We can figure out
>>>> later whether this is always, only exceptionally, or never good
>>>> style.
>>> 
>>> I agree with this.  So again, I propose to permit <br> as a child element
>>> of these elements, where I think the semantics of a <br> would be well-
>>> defined:
>>> 
>>>    blockquote
>>>    dd
>>>    dt
>>>    em
>>>    li
>>>    name
>>>    strong
>>>    t
>>>    td
>>>    th
>>>    title
>>>    tt
>>> 
>>> Should <sub> and <sup> be in that list?  If we compare with the places where
>>> for instance <bcp14> is permitted, the answer would be 'yes'; but I'm not
>>> sure it's the right thing to do.
>>> ...
>> 
>> For <title>, I will continue to ask about the use case (line break
>> opportunity vs required line break vs title & subtitle), as this affects
>> what would happen if it occurs in a <reference>, or if there's an <xref>
>> with format="title”.
> 
> I don’t think we'll need <br> in titles; it's sufficient to have wj,
> nbsp, and nbhy.
> 
> If we come across examples where <br> would be useful in titles, we
> can revisit this discussion at that time. However, please note that
> if this case arises, it means publication of the document will be
> delayed until xml2rfc is updated.

So, how would you handle the first of my two examples in an earlier message
in this thread:  The title of my implementation notes draft, which requires
more than one line both in text, html and pdf rendering:

                     Implementation notes for RFC7991,
                    "The 'xml2rfc' Version 3 Vocabulary"


Regards,

	Henrik