Re: [xml2rfc-dev] <artset> feedback

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julian,

On 2019-05-10 10:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 09.05.2019 13:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
> 
> 5. Preptool behavior
> 
> So the motivation for <artset> is:
> 
>>    The way <artwork> has been specified to handle the presence of both
>>    SVG artwork and text fallback (in Section 2.5 of [RFC7991]) has the
>>    result that any SVG content has to be placed as a data: URL in the
>>    "src" attribute when an ascii-art fallback is present.  This makes
>>    the SVG effectively uneditable once the preptool has been run, even
>>    if the SVG artwork was originally provided as a regular SVG XML file
>>    external to the document XML file.
> 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-08#section-3.1.1>
> 
> So I was under the impression that the preptool would deal with this by
> inserting <artset> elements when needed, and I was confused because the
> documentation doesn't say so.
> 
> Testing with:
> 
>> <artwork type="svg" src="rect.svg">
>> +-+
>> | |
>> +-+</artwork>
> 
> and xml2rfc --v3 however gives:
> 
>> foo.xml(225): Error: Found <artwork> with both a 'src' attribute and content.  Please use <artset> with multiple <artwork> instances instead.
>> foo.xml(475): Error: When looking for the name of "     ", got: no such name
> 
> So something that was perfectly valid before is now a fatal error. Is
> this intentional or something that is on the todo list?

"Before" meaning at which point in time?  Are you claiming this is valid v2?

> IMHO, this input is perfectly ok (and indeed what authors would want to
> use), and the preptool should rewrite that if needed.

??  The preptool isn't in the business of converting invalid input to valid.

What you have above is invalid v2, valid according to RFC 7991, but not
valid after the introduction of <artset>.


	Henrik