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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 05 October 2019 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C703C120089; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l_tyNB7FVrs4; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB770120020; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y5so5110161pfo.4; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MkKZyXXtv0yoY+x2mnY3KjO3kKewse9zW5PWr5EvuOE=; b=cw4dJ+OxK01wDSGDi3ELImRc0h1FVLB1UzvOcSxE0kElAQbsd0qSWPlkXH/Jh+ul1W zlivWQrS2wXuWp0y2r7hGw5554/fclURe44H2VTLAIDjL4V0OUMyYi1AlsW7Su1pfzAl D7qMEDclhucE0WbI8UoMLPB7IiofXkq6Gv5Ekf/E7j4kau8H+UVT6Vi1cnLeipGvqBml w7Ym273vAMoNfvnbo9R3wIy3ijqk4RpRbiWv7+YEPSTGQRVh3aW1K71jZhQD72D3Maq1 RaN4RZ2NoETdH1YkxBEwsJkYAvkxkMgWavf/ua+GzmIPIR2eK1cBx2iCOFUQwEZLCr08 apnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MkKZyXXtv0yoY+x2mnY3KjO3kKewse9zW5PWr5EvuOE=; b=TNdAJm7tpKcFLxKAc6Qt0oJwJCiIKYuspoQ9NqVup4gP/BFCKobLzi/mmHq0cvHZI6 5RRYfc6CaSIau4a6xTViKggx85vdydDJVKHk4ypoO91ANegXbf4bsdJsJjHrT7QzxGyh PTlzvbBl+wvdLO6Vurj5xv8BJAYgZgQAjkt3kJLKGbwQJpWpWTMf1WbZrR7mfckbOdrd 0el5VThS8UDX22XRNiaJM0KTdUchOjTWSTj5/+mMIj2bkUsuUDq5mNCJXvwLZhSVJXuQ k8wOyJQqxI4shCtL9SUS3oPyvRP+axILtDAkT64rzK3htO3+LXT+Pm7ZLiKCBtWXQhik FrUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU61ZUBfeu4843bRELFdLoe/u85c8P/O7mMol0HXaymjgPNG1nC GrA0RBp+hxjTPy538tuU92iUHAL8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxv1xCVJAfJw6+srinloepHfnwOddkiP9wm6ekhhjjQUDY0DaWMGlehztOTnXSfvdABgZ87DQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cb16:: with SMTP id z22mr21384309pjt.70.1570250203953; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a23sm7630645pgd.83.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Oct 2019 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Julian Reschke <>, Sandy Ginoza <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 17:36:40 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] [xml2rfc-dev] <br> is back, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.32.0
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 04:36:47 -0000

Hi Julian,
On 05-Oct-19 17:08, Julian Reschke wrote:
...> The point of the xml2rfc vocabulary is to markup things based on their
> semantics, not based on a certain desired plain text output.

Fair enough; if we want to illustrate a point with a plain text example, then <artwork> seems appropriate. But I think we are talking about something else: cases where we *want* the text to stop here
and continue on the next line, whatever output format (including HTML) we are using.
> If we can't get acceptable *HTML* output, let's consider the use case
> and come up with a proper solution (which might be <br/>).

It applies to PDF etc too.


> Why do these need to be on separate lines? (I don't understand the
> context yet...)

Ah, but a tool designer doesn't *need* to understand the context. If the author *wants* a line break, that's all we need to know.

> (And yes, there was ample time to have this dicussion; RFC 7991 finished
> three years ago).

I'm a bit confused: