IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfc-markdown] Trying to mitigate "Re: The <tt> train wreck"

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 27 April 2022 08:08 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 A3DAEC224C62 for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hcRNuLUEicGP for <rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211C9C07B281 for <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KpBGD3sGMzDCf0; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:08:36 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5fa2fbdc-6855-b63d-8392-9bcadbbf6552@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:08:35 +0200
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A0AA06F4-C5BD-40AF-9580-6FEA05357368@tzi.org>
References: <20220427011450.EDBFD3EE73DA@ary.qy> <5fa2fbdc-6855-b63d-8392-9bcadbbf6552@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/YEPER3O0xJxPj0sjSonRRfEofUQ>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] Trying to mitigate "Re: The <tt> train wreck"
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:08:40 -0000

On 27. Apr 2022, at 09:39, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Back then, we looked at this area, and decided that an omnipotent
> semantic approach was too complex; that's exactly why similar attempts
> in HTML have failed.

Yeah, <dfn and <kbd and friends.
That doesn’t work too well.

What the 7991 process missed is that multi-format rendering needs more information about the reason for a style change like <tt (decorative vs. distinctive).

That information is “semantic”, but not in the sense of enumerating all possible application semantics (as in <dfn and <kbd) and then hard-coding their stylistic presentation.

It is semantic as in providing enough information about the author’s intent to enable multi-format rendering.
That’s what we are missing with <tt, and it is easy enough to fix this bug.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email