Re: [Rfc-markdown] [netmod] too long lines from IANA module inclusion

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 19 December 2021 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 B714C3A0991 for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 23:14:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=iBIOucmQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=TVBhdDm4
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 WGYbeC3ePUUd for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 23:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA9DB3A0990 for <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 23:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E7B3200A2A; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 02:13:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 19 Dec 2021 02:13:58 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=R xtHmCSL4ZB8JBHfhlkwR8PU3OEe1Bg1m3vlH+Y8CHA=; b=iBIOucmQaVEF6GFgu iCsQ4tGFqWHeo5uJ7Rdv8st8VuoMMoy0DN3Wx95cWbJtzTBSOe+pW1dodwUEGeWL UQXVxLaKRrI/BNk9/kj1bE3iqTw6tdrQ5GJlBnGmbNWwzFD+c7FoEP99E6kknN53 2uuDu0Z7EwAfFpGfRq/PUzV1XG+cDIXScbZW4fsPN0IgWgZe888YiaqVMtMjlIrs xKANBB3dfaMZf0fHB9nRg0CAAenoE/kVTexFFimq9Ws7tnLsxHv+Ll6ZwYLS4/XM RmkdiqZy9ZqNJHIyJvd6phtvSuKSO8jaX8sDmBkRhWpWe+43rgL4iiyjdLdSV2vD PCOUw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=RxtHmCSL4ZB8JBHfhlkwR8PU3OEe1Bg1m3vlH+Y8C HA=; b=TVBhdDm4BbpAP8myjguhSpQW8E/HKO6zot/4b8e/hOk8WPf0U6JtCXx5X V4CI/5Wt6A04CZVB2w6JIba7nmobdZRIK+JpBOh2GKdbo8xIe8wWx6HLAlfcyF7P ZyqFdrZDKUzbwheapXWmN+p+cE51Nt1lUUZu5Tg6Y1krDexNb6XqSSHWqP/ve0Ih i13LM2uePSHpAQgq+GgIUzZcVtKHjRRBKeCv+sGGECuRQOvYSZVnS55OPYnitC/7 qRuj547dGuqE9FD6YC93Z4aLzOtJN9KyDkzfXMrt/WO83lhz1R/d+ujDIEJTzbyG dcjrRXMEPR9qtdZyrZOhnyH1csu0Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:tdu-YcRfJFx49X-v8Voe5hd5B8PativYKaEz0XjOZAMzC13uXCOkpw> <xme:tdu-YZz6LHJCXSB5wribuidwX8QxiV0tLdZLRDkT8r5E-v-FVhxB5DgogHzcME1RW TwCF2TDT_bQesK1fw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:tdu-YZ00f00VQIZOWXBzzku9Tvl6WsyWvxwcxgPVdaoblQ2yzuD61VSNOtz7hveeQPKa2bAsKynRy6lsK3c9-8etI00oeN_uH-pTVwSvZUR74LZ1Q2XQl-j_>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrleelgddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeetfeelffejfffhheehfeefgedulefgueejudekieegvdeghefffedvheffieel keenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:tdu-YQDhDTT9BZO6BD4-I5Bxj2VRq1StGOTI5P-hlisKvH4KsTvGPg> <xmx:tdu-YViRUkoPRKSwa5l37v90aNG7j1umAFhbRxRHivD3JhbtsKVgXA> <xmx:tdu-YcqOw6Fae6EHiDdN8MtkI0TGaxQG7h3Zf5JhXc5WV0DDGTYjNw> <xmx:tdu-YatDv06R3kk21vsD2p5OtlgIhey_2lm7SAuPJKmHxQIkEnNZuQ>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 02:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <FB6407ED-BA9D-415A-AFCB-0D4D327679ED@tzi.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 18:13:53 +1100
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <906C21C4-A010-44A6-B565-BDF7BF5F628B@mnot.net>
References: <43BBAD20-D816-4D01-8326-1D67185CCC19@tzi.org> <24856.1639347093@localhost> <0100017db6a106f8-a9773885-6347-4fd6-a2d6-69ec6941bc7b-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20211214.083324.1824911592330241723.id@4668.se> <3782772c-b5b4-4285-f65e-67b1113e1b07@huawei.com> <0100017dc8e0fcbd-8899bb50-f0bf-4537-a87b-64eb82d9664a-000000@email.amazonses.com> <FB6407ED-BA9D-415A-AFCB-0D4D327679ED@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/LJO07VqvQyq6osCszrLkBucrdSE>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [netmod] too long lines from IANA module inclusion
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, 19 Dec 2021 07:14:07 -0000

On 18 Dec 2021, at 2:38 am, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> Examples from the HTTP ecosystem (GNAP, HTTPAPI, HTTPBIS) didn’t have any “===“ decoration, though.  (Why the heck was this left open as a choice for the author?  I like “%%%” decoration instead, should I use that as a personal fashion statement?)

Textual decoration around features like this makes sense in an ASCII-only RFC format. They're anachronistic in a HTML view of the spec.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/