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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 04 October 2019 15:40 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 9E40D1208EE; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 EsmK26XvbiYX; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:40:33 -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 C41211208EA; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.159.97.60] (ewa_guest_internet_sthlm_nat2.ericsson.net [192.176.1.97]) (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 46lDbg6CPsz10r7; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:40:31 +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: <de4feaff-8f71-cd38-545c-2d848749251b@levkowetz.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:40:31 +0200
Cc: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>, "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>, "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 591896429.6903909-8a922213fc43d8f6be916c5806b72228
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AFB054CA-71C4-48FA-8097-9242E7E104E4@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>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/kjEnPoYn9psaDjUfoIw6Q_8t4EQ>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc-dev] <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, 04 Oct 2019 15:40:36 -0000

Something is not right with the process if we have a clear requirement and an obvious solution, but instead have to resort to using an obscure, widely shunned Unicode feature so we appear not to violate the specification.

Grüße, Carsten


> On Oct 4, 2019, at 17:34, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> On 2019-10-04 17:25, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>> On 10/4/19, 10:49 AM, "xml2rfc-dev on behalf of Julian Reschke" <xml2rfc-dev-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>>    On 04.10.2019 14:41, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>> ...
>>>   * Improved the handling of U+2028 in text output, and fixed a bug in the
>>>   * handling of U+2028 in the HTML output.
>>> ...
>> 
>>    So U+2028 is Unicode "LINE SEPARATOR". What this means is that xml2rfc
>>    now supports forced line breaks, just a few weeks (months?) after there
>>    was a decision not to include the <br> element.
>> 
>>    I think this is a really bad idea, as opposed to having an explicit <br>
>>    element, because:
>> 
>>    1. It's kind of obscure (hint: browsers do not process it as line break).
>> 
>>    2. The grammar doesn't help people to understand where it is allowed.
>>    Actually, where *is* it allowed? Anywhere?
>> 
>>    So, AFAIC, if we identify cases where we want to allow forced line
>>    breaks, we should allow them explicitly (and in the same way HTML does).
>> 
>> I have always preferred having an explicit <br/> element (however it
>> gets spelled). I fought in the design team to have support for it in
>> at least some limited cases, and think removing it entirely was
>> completely the wrong decision. I'm too much of a pragmatic engineer.
> 
> I'm strongly for having an explicit <br/> element.
> 
> Given a clearly expressed need from the RPC, I will always try to provide
> tools to make it possible for them to do their work.  Without having <br/>
> available, this was a fallback solution.  Continuing to ignore clearly
> expressed needs of the RPC seems unproductive.
> 
> 
> 	Henrik
> 
> 
>