Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #37: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.12, <br>

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

On 2018-10-02 20:10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Miek Gieben <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> [ Quoting <[e-mail]> in "Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991
>> issue #3..." ]
>>> I just thought of something different that might deal with Miek's
>>> issue: change the name of the element to <tbr>. That will prevent
>>> people who "know" what <br> "means" from expecting it to work
>>> because <br> doesn't exist.
>>> 
>>> If, later, we want to add <br> for running text (with lots of
>>> description of what it will and will not do to displayed RFCs),
>>> we can do so then.
>> 
>> What's the problem for just allowing it ~everywhere (ala HTML); and
>> go by the motto: garbage in; garbage out?
> 
> See previous answers. We don't want "garbage in", these are
> long-lived documents. We want documents that are well-structured and
> well-searchable and so on.

I would say that a wish for that is a good reason to make that easy to
accomplish, which seems to me like an argument for more consistency.

>> I wonder who can honestly say that they can write 7991 XML
>> *without* having the spec next to them.
> 
> Most likely not. Nor could they do that with the current v2 format if
> they did anything more than paragraphs and sections.

Maybe so, but that's not an argument against aiming for a more consistent
and cleaner specification.  That's just another way of saying that it was
bad before, so we're not going to attempt to make it better now.


Regards,

	Henrik