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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Fri, 04 October 2019 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.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 DA5DD1208EA; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 etdt2kyeDgVw; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2D271208E5; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:63942 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1iGR2S-00055W-Qm; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:06:45 -0700
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
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> <AFB054CA-71C4-48FA-8097-9242E7E104E4@tzi.org>
Cc: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>, "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>, "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <af661579-430d-1e63-4884-b8358d114765@levkowetz.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 19:06:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AFB054CA-71C4-48FA-8097-9242E7E104E4@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iSnCrFJ6wXhN3kqUdI546CIFTX1t4VHlx"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, tony@att.com, cabo@tzi.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/F8M3hbJTipQolef4d-j1i03rYkc>
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: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:06:47 -0000

On 2019-10-04 17:40, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Something is not right with the process if we have a clear
> requirement and an obvious solution, but instead have to resort to
> using an obscure, widely shunned Unicode feature so we appear not to
> violate the specification.

I couldn't agree more.

My recollection is that the pushback from design team members against
permitting <br> generally when this was discussed in October 2018 was so
strong that it was not accepted.  Few other people participated in the
discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-dev/?q=subject%3A%2337

	Henrik

> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 17:34, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Signed PGP part
>> 
>> On 2019-10-04 17:25, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>>> On 10/4/19, 10:49 AM, "xml2rfc-dev on behalf of Julian Reschke" <xml2rfc-dev-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    On 04.10.2019 14:41, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>   * Improved the handling of U+2028 in text output, and fixed a bug in the
>>>>   * handling of U+2028 in the HTML output.
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>>    So U+2028 is Unicode "LINE SEPARATOR". What this means is that xml2rfc
>>>    now supports forced line breaks, just a few weeks (months?) after there
>>>    was a decision not to include the <br> element.
>>> 
>>>    I think this is a really bad idea, as opposed to having an explicit <br>
>>>    element, because:
>>> 
>>>    1. It's kind of obscure (hint: browsers do not process it as line break).
>>> 
>>>    2. The grammar doesn't help people to understand where it is allowed.
>>>    Actually, where *is* it allowed? Anywhere?
>>> 
>>>    So, AFAIC, if we identify cases where we want to allow forced line
>>>    breaks, we should allow them explicitly (and in the same way HTML does).
>>> 
>>> I have always preferred having an explicit <br/> element (however it
>>> gets spelled). I fought in the design team to have support for it in
>>> at least some limited cases, and think removing it entirely was
>>> completely the wrong decision. I'm too much of a pragmatic engineer.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 	Henrik
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>