IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] [Tools-discuss] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Thu, 19 January 2023 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@petit-huguenin.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 59BA4C14CF0D; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:31:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kF5ikusQxFKt; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [92.243.22.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59657C14CF18; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2601:204:e37f:a6af:d250:99ff:fedf:93cf] (unknown [IPv6:2601:204:e37f:a6af:d250:99ff:fedf:93cf]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4522AE232; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:31:35 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <bed83f40-08f2-e3da-702a-7bcbc83c3fe5@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:31:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
Cc: Kesara Rathnayake <kesara@staff.ietf.org>, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, rfc-markdown@ietf.org
References: <CAD2=Z87EMetcpv66YY_b2+X1-yFy4cTpKMjPoJL=cH99c7P_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9d719176-a4eb-7cce-e706-10325700531c@petit-huguenin.org> <53566677-148e-d945-fd8f-9c289db62036@amsl.com> <63391716-EC1F-4EAE-BE77-A8DE402D84B3@tzi.org>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
In-Reply-To: <63391716-EC1F-4EAE-BE77-A8DE402D84B3@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------BwkWsKSlmeu9rDYmH0jmRW0p"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/BKyG_0UD93yTfS6y2VbdXET9ePc>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] [Tools-discuss] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:31:42 -0000

On 1/19/23 09:18, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2023-01-19, at 17:10, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote:
>>
>> RFC 7997 provides guidance on the use of non-ASCII; however, xml2rfc was too restrictive in its enforcing of it.
> 
> Note that while RFC 7997 mandates the mention of code points for characters that go into the protocol, it does not mandate the use of <u.  (It cannot have mandated that, as <u wasn’t invented yet.)  Requiring the use of <u to fulfill the requirement of RFC 7997 clearly was overstepping the remit of the tool that is xml2rfc.

Yes it was, although it was the right idea, which was to update the xml2rfc language to be able to enforce all the exceptions listed in RFC 7997.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email