IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 02 October 2018 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BC7130EA0 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 9qQfeX1t_1H7 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D1ED130DC2 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:10:34 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:10:34 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>
CC: "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #37: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.12, <br>
Thread-Index: AQHUWns2zg3OydGlZk2ck7XqhhxM3Q==
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 18:10:33 +0000
Message-ID: <2C672A24-F2F1-47C4-B183-EE078F920D50@icann.org>
References: <E1g6wQ8-00057n-85@durif.tools.ietf.org> <70ee4cff-7533-13e0-d71a-ffecf2dc56f0@gmx.de> <24828f94-dbbd-4c18-8d85-333487bda367@levkowetz.com> <3ac63652-2df2-03c7-eee6-bad2cbd326d8@levkowetz.com> <B63F3A7C-AAB6-4281-BC5F-BC28E9693E43@icann.org> <20181002180304.nsrwbvpcesb4ozrd@miek.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20181002180304.nsrwbvpcesb4ozrd@miek.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B8E541C8-7B5B-464F-9D9D-472BDF797A43"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/JmM1gCkgQ0-DUgjRAgHzT8X6TV8>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #37: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.12, <br>
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." <xml2rfc-dev.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 18:10:38 -0000

On Oct 2, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl> wrote:
> 
> [ Quoting <paul.hoffman@icann.org> 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 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.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email