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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 18, 2019, at 18:05, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Coming back to Carsten's point about well-defined semantics, I'm not sure
> that is the case for <sub> and <sup>.  Should that imply text stacking
> within for instance the <sup>, or should the whole line be broken and the
> superscript continued on the next line?  Does that even make sense?

To me this sounds like any use cases would involve math, which should be handled separately.

If we are unsure about the semantics, we should not put that nesting in.
We can always amend the schema; we just don’t want to amend the existing instances that need to conform to any new version.

I share Julian’s curiosity about the use cases (really: intended semantics) for title/br.

The one example we can see in RFC-8668-to-be is

  <li><t>L2 Bundle Member Link Local Identifiers&br;
  (4 * Number of L2 Bundle Member Descriptors octets)</t>

where I think we already have consensus that this should go in.
(And, yes, defining the entity as <br/> is a nice way to make that transition.)

Grüße, Carsten