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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 18 October 2019 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 4A233120CE8; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.864
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 NYu78RxtLnfk; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEAFE12011C; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.44.33] (vpn27.hotsplots.net [185.46.137.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46vpp16bN9zygg; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:49:13 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b096e29c-02a0-e009-621e-c1eca4712226@levkowetz.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:49:12 +0200
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 593102951.0785511-2f9f23ac8b458398b63896de07fe6982
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4321EEBF-92C2-4405-81BD-899C0FCAC762@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> <f00a671a-6fe4-f5ae-2582-0b78ffa1c256@gmx.de> <1f18382c-d830-b887-f5d3-3f376ae4fdd7@gmx.de> <B15F7AF0-F5A0-401A-9F6E-F7E0E466B6A7@amsl.com> <f4f1b7ba-127a-fbfa-531b-eeff03814281@gmx.de> <71bc8d39-d06c-d900-cc8e-04a48218d75f@gmail.com> <0905DADC-E9D5-47A7-B610-F8A62686D2BD@att.com> <07DBAE10-D1FA-45C4-B7A2-321B265CA302@amsl.com> <694c9244-98ae-1e64-39ef-8756d48b36ef@gmx.de> <860c663b-744f-a033-cc50-96088bb1b33c@gmx.de> <04DCBCE3-2C8C-4B03-9081-EF2B7A5C6087@tzi.org> <b096e29c-02a0-e009-621e-c1eca4712226@levkowetz.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/WutuHOeTM-VmMtbp9huY_pUGvyI>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc-dev] [xml2rfc] <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, 18 Oct 2019 14:49:19 -0000

Hi Henrik,

> On Oct 18, 2019, at 15:04, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>; wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> On 2019-10-18 13:33, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2019, at 12:36, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; wrote:
>>> 
>>> I note that there is one XML in AUTH48 using this (RFC 8668), so this
>>> really is a bit pressing.
> 
> All of the entity references used during the RPC work are converted to
> unicode code points when the prepped file is produced.  If you see an
> entity reference in a prepped file it's either a bug or it has been added
> manually.

I think that was what Julian was afraid of: Having U+2028 in an immutable published RFC.

>> This uses a &br; entity reference — we can easily change that entity into
>> “<br />” later without touching the XML file :-)
>> 
>> (I’m not finding the “rfc2629-xhtml.ent”, so maybe that already is the case.)
> 
> It’s been in the xml2rfc distribution for ages.  

I have 424 files with that name on my laptop.
These fall into the following equivalence classes (grouped by md5sum):

 316 1205eb5efbbc8d9a734ba77055388d70
  88 1aa6d2431ef0219b231913c8fb3c9253
   2 234420ff1ceb61201fa41655b841513a
   3 46cad1ba9b921fe41a9102e912073d74
   2 7a013cd802f0df7e3d9000cd85b9749f
   2 a66a1389336402406e917908aa6e3255
   8 cc77bb83d0c9c7c19afd2da03140f1b7
   3 d2faa8069ff9e2ef2c7c097d2e17cbad

Of these, I find these in xml2rfc:

  22 1205eb5efbbc8d9a734ba77055388d70
   2 234420ff1ceb61201fa41655b841513a
   2 a66a1389336402406e917908aa6e3255
   8 cc77bb83d0c9c7c19afd2da03140f1b7

I didn’t diff all these combinations against each other, but one recent change seems to be:

<!-- Typographic help characters -->
<!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;"><!-- U+232A RIGHT-POINTING ANGLE BRACKET        -->
<!ENTITY br     "&#8232;"><!-- U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR                      -->
<!ENTITY wj     “&#8288;"><!-- U+2060 WORD JOINER                         -->

And more recently:

<!-- Typographic help characters -->
<!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;"><!-- U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE                    -->
<!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;"><!-- U+2011 NON BREAKING HYPHEN                 -->
<!ENTITY br     "&#8232;"><!-- U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR                      -->
<!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;"><!-- U+2060 WORD JOINER                         -->

> If it's desired to make it
> more widely available, I’m sure we could do that.

I was looking for a statement about the definitive source (and thus the definitive version), not a 425th copy…

(It also should be put into the RFC-editor’s /authors directory, so that the authoring-RFCXMLv3 files there can be validated.)

Grüße, Carsten