Re: [Rfc-markdown] bcp14, was: [xml2rfc-dev] New xml2rfc release: v2.25.0

Julian Reschke <> Mon, 26 August 2019 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F384A12008B; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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 (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BVKkxV6r7tFF; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C735D12084E; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1566840398; bh=HqbRghhrflW0frxQJPiCSog4YA8SgZl3ArlmbqIZj+Y=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=h/A4g2CrSGdfNWl/I5fUdr/bhEm4EsPD7g+Avw6YcvZmSUEhi+9ztgtyblM4V0Pz6 GHMsY+loSEmrO6hQikTSjd1F0ExmYYBcEpKJ/LWWD03L7NM7M6zqmboJj4asqNX70H ns4qhZFU7GRIynZZlGG+bFtrU2Ww9fu7lBLFgalM=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx003 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lhfu5-1iXWzX1IpN-00mr9H; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:26:38 +0200
To: Henrik Levkowetz <>,,,
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Julian Reschke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:26:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jgvxceVkTS1OHgQokr14H1CBJXmQiHZBaf940SxjA/L33vzPLb1 wd6FF4SusN27aPkYHfWsdtr5mRCZn4lU9yqLoxMhw08Gra7hH0eUfiZJLLLsT752+kQ9SGz nfufC+K84NfgRuSl050iRTtj1G6x7RoTd6oTI6VZvxa4/m5NRSjiDrXIHRrnmwNkzW1CuhQ PfJuBSq+oA97sgCKsthxw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:vN2rObqCaGQ=:YaKM0+Gzl+JHrzb5AopFRn n+Lpn8zEoNFxdXQT1vql/ZrktqimU1dV6UOO7pxhheeCIg0wO4lwqAUTVx/a/V2p2FG7DFWFF 6+VgxJ6pSSFN9zg9DtMn6qIh4cnvvCI3r5IJPFFyy+5Kw5V13+ZESNEPHEUVEyWR1LMCJNnVA 2r6lYv/tKm5LqT7agur8noVHxTRMCpbxi+EWhsyHsaItPT5kbolLLPkz+vQdhYXFc0piF2f4E 3rzYaOdzyKEM8O84aLSJhdr8eyyq6KrXHen2MxO8puYhSB5MsYVxmji8P9xKzZ5rGr23clDNo ALPR/n6NPhMo3mgDnTkQdrGq5SHd3mZX97bPH3aSdmkKJhdxCPjlssrStC9l0AzfnhZubY64p yEE5DtMLXNTM8AwL8qFRnssWbEeLgo6840I4E2b0tG6tx9Tx+8OeSWXhmeQrru/N4iUvMWxpW uKNa/k0V7FP8YKkdWsWoi10rT51+CiWKs31pusm01AhppDEBv1BBVusPH1Hjrk4+p2YsTiL0P dRYSysbv39J10qIfnsgIhHptj8hasOpi6mRJBX6OVnL5Piv7uDC3sqgUAg5+JD5m2eQWbUNSE bgztCXrKjvPVbgNpYdPZSTV8S+5kh77GR4mUjDB/nXA92usCCnU/ijrbrRk76sqiTl9h1rQ8M 3Pf2CZ+OsCgAr7O+/GQ7ae2fdllqPgYVPLdvorDGjl5xqWJflEvfRhOpthR64A70q01r0Z4nf OZtEnhuN/iha9Vmj4rgiYKDJnD3DgK7T8LhWw2TnuOIDoDYkE4ZEx22uZBZm6XuIQ7sA9mK7J BaO/EIskrKL3PtTsPdvlWSBG4p/gFRwqWZGbuYZf4QY2tyoRy8vX4v3I/gErZP/5z/Mv1xq7D Fr+9Ere37jxwWhojE2ZwWVCTWHc8aq29+TsoPH6xYSCeUTL8+nVhWQRvHXpanyxP35WZCzuaD 7KoO0LpCggQtd1LOgi3PBpystRrRJo8geJsgGZ9s9MXj7BV1gcZwUOQCzOVsmzq6XOxXYVqOl mzvk160g0rjNto5DV2QcdhjdJJO/cCVBRBR+lCdZjQMHk/KZNAyuK2D/NFmIS8k2dvyymXpa5 Y2B9XNYsjAnXH4qwVcafD9lw06D32p65Ax4CMBjTtyU2pOhkfrqZIc6vTXN9SwRJ+HQusceBO fIZ7hZPqPeHXQkq93sY+Oe/SHxQj6uFvp9md7i8XjIvueivA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] bcp14, was: [xml2rfc-dev] New xml2rfc release: v2.25.0
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:26:57 -0000

On 26.08.2019 19:14, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> . > It seems to me that the alternative to recognising "MUST&nbsp;NOT" as a
> valid keyword, and not emit warnings for it, is to disallow U+00A0 (which
> is equivalent to &nbsp; occurring in our XML) in this position.  To me,

Yes. Or warn about it.

> that seems worse than the original problem.
> It seems to me that future tools that process our XML should be prepared
> to deal with unicode whitespace generally, not only ASCII space.

Yes, but not necessarily everywhere.

<bcp14> was not added just for rendering, but also so that tools could
extract information about normative requirements.

I just don't see how detecting the keywords will work reliably if it
requires converting an essentially open-ended set of Unicode characters
(given that the set of whitespace characters can be extended).

If the sole reason for this change is to avoid breaking up MUST_NOT (and
friends), why not hard-wire that into the renderers (for HTML, I believe
it could be done with CSS...)? That will at least create consistency,
and avoid yet another task to deal with during AUTH48.

Best regards, Julian