Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch still needed?
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Sun, 24 October 2021 19:39 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
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 45AA13A08E5;
Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham 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 T2dE1SVhA1rZ; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147])
(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 F01733A0926;
Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7306256E;
Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with LMTP id O8i63PDTn1IV; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx140e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.29])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53C5C62569;
Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, rfc-markdown@ietf.org
Cc: "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>
References: <ab61777c-5446-c7c8-1ba1-ec8d8bde2cd4@htt-consult.com>
<2A985F36-1332-497F-8DDC-2531245FA8A3@tzi.org>
<CADyWQ+FQLoK047A=34VdayGu0s4Q9pnL0FnXkcFs=uAbpcH-Zg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <17adc707-6d65-3455-7fb0-ae82d88e0b77@htt-consult.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:38:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+FQLoK047A=34VdayGu0s4Q9pnL0FnXkcFs=uAbpcH-Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------AE132AD7D315D8D9048C5CDF"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/E7DM-jxGSTQ2n_JFo0g_AOEZtfo>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch still needed?
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: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:39:19 -0000
I am on ver 3.10.0, but like how do you know that the proper txt was
built and not some fall back to whatever v2 would do?
Perhaps mv what I did with --v3 to a different name, run without the
option and use rfcdiff to compare the two txt files?
On 10/24/21 3:30 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> In version 3.10.0 It appears the default for --v3 is True, which is
> what I would have done:
>
> formatoptions.add_argument('--v3', action='store_true', default=True,
> help='with --text and --html: use the v3
> formatter, rather than the legacy one')
>
> Try it w/out the --v3 if you are up to date (and if not....)
>
> tim
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 12:33 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org
> <mailto:cabo@tzi.org>> wrote:
>
> On 2021-10-24, at 17:07, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com
> <mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Do we still need to include the --v3 switch on the command line?
> >
> > particularly if we have
> >
> > <rfc ... version="3">
> >
> > getting tired typing it in all the time...
>
> It is generally a big thing to change a command line interface, as
> the command may be embedded in a lot of scripts (it certainly is
> for xml2rfc), which then do unexpected things.
>
> I happen to be thinking about a related kind of change for kdrfc,
> the “driver” command for kramdown-rfc2629. That change would
> require some indication of v3ness in the markdown file; but maybe
> that same indication would be a nice way to get rid of needing to
> override old defaults (such as setting stand_alone: true,
> consensus: true if category: std; also the need to declare ipr:
> trust200902 or pi: [toc, sortrefs, symrefs, comments], etc.).
>
> Feedback about the latter welcome to rfc-markdown@ietf.org
> <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rfc-markdown mailing list
> Rfc-markdown@ietf.org <mailto:Rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>
>
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] Is the --v3 switch s… Robert Moskowitz