IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Fri, 04 October 2019 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.com>
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 58E4E1208DA; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 5NW0yOea6GQM; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B461120897; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:63617 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1iGPb3-0005CP-RQ; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 08:34:38 -0700
To: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>, "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>
References: <E1iGMu9-00055y-Ui@durif.tools.ietf.org> <8304e61d-c550-91ea-9e23-eef2cd31240b@gmx.de> <A3513970-EEB0-4DBD-9E6F-A87EBFAF886D@att.com>
Cc: "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <de4feaff-8f71-cd38-545c-2d848749251b@levkowetz.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:34:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A3513970-EEB0-4DBD-9E6F-A87EBFAF886D@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rs8JueJ1tpRT64pbjwfTruWIBX3gpnsUx"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, tony@att.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/tW56TUxB6ErFJYCsJEJ53i0iBQg>
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 15:34:40 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email