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

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 04 October 2018 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 ECAE2130DC5 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 uKinjauy9eFE for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE803128CFD for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (192.168.0.11) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:23:34 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Henrik Levkowetz' <henrik@levkowetz.com>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Paul Hoffman' <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.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> <1BA3E011-CEB3-4F56-9CB5-599C6D2D8A5D@icann.org> <2a71916e-4704-ef8c-b9bb-0cda1781c706@levkowetz.com> <2a06b7c8-5a84-60eb-c96e-25d07c61d67f@gmx.de> <4b49045f-49d7-2b01-bb57-087f8e014e5b@levkowetz.com> <32ef6fd2-058a-c44a-5129-26cd22343943@gmx.de> <a3d0816e-6cc0-dd11-9370-b391e3e71010@levkowetz.com> <c122b751-119d-9a10-a2b6-af90b140cfc8@gmx.de> <6c9785df-73c0-78ff-0c69-1ea1b369b0e0@levkowetz.com> <766a8834-4e7a-e819-6b76-2682eb99be9e@gmx.de> <81f488c3-1caf-a7cc-dc38-c39b3ca2ba5a@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <81f488c3-1caf-a7cc-dc38-c39b3ca2ba5a@levkowetz.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 19:28:05 -0700
Message-ID: <037501d45b89$e3562db0$aa028910$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJneuHnr/v7zss5vAhzJBHAbfZkOwKlc/I8AYxBdvwC96tKtwHRLD6/AWGKk5cCjgaQ/wK+otNhAV3fW7kC/GVRgwGTDJtVAY52clAB0G9X5QMfuKvRowd4N/A=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.0.11]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/K4kRpdRwsTWjojEn4EYB9g-4I1Q>
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: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 02:28:18 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml2rfc-dev <xml2rfc-dev-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Henrik
> Levkowetz
> Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 4:48 PM
> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; Paul Hoffman
> <paul.hoffman@icann.org>; xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #37: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In
> Section 2.12, <br>
> 
> On 2018-10-03 17:08, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 10/3/2018 2:53 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> >> Hi Julian,
> >>
> >> On 2018-10-03 14:19, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>> On 10/3/2018 2:13 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Yes, I've run that through the current text processor, and I
> >>>> particularly looked at it when working on table rendering.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where is it you need <br> to make this come out right?
> >>>
> >>> In the titles, at least if we want to reproduce what the RFC has.
> >>
> >> Thank you for that.  It provides much better understanding of the
> >> case which prompted the introduction of <br>.
> >>
> >> Now, the new v3 feature which cost absolutely most extra work to
> >> implement, by far, was the addition of table rowspan capability.
> >
> > I feel your pain.
> >
> >> If it really is imperative to break a column title in one particular
> >> place (and I agree it may be desirable) then why can't it be handled
> >> by using rowspan for the other header cells, and two cells for the
> >> particular column title that needs to be broken in a controlled manner?
> >
> > Example, please?
> 
> Umm?  Take the table you pointed at, give each header cell rowspan="2",
> except the cell(s) where you want a particular line break, and put the first part
> in the first cell and the second part in the second cell.
> 
> >> And second, why is this a concern in a column header, and not, for
> >> instance in the document title?
> >>
> >> This is the result of a too long document title today (an actual
> >> example as rendered by the v3 text renderer):
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Network Working Group                                       H. Levkowetz
> >> Internet-Draft                                              Elf Tools AB
> >> Intended status: Informational                            3 October 2018
> >> Expires: 6 April 2019
> >>
> >>
> >>         Implementation notes for RFC7991, "The 'xml2rfc' Version 3
> >>                                Vocabulary"
> >>             draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-04
> >
> > In the past, we have worked around that by using non-breaking spaces
> > where we want to keep things together. I doubt that the same approach
> > would work well in narrow table cells...
> 
> Why not?  There's no mathematical difference between the two cases.
> 
> >> ...
> >>> That is true, but I'm prepared to argue that if they want to enforce
> >>> a line break in running text, they are doing something wrong.
> >>
> >> But can we be so sure of that, that it's right to enforce the current
> >> limitation?  Had you thought of the case of a document title, above?
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> Ok, good.  In that case I really don't understand why <br> wasn't provided for
> document titles (and section titles, too, where I've also come across similar
> issues for long titles).
> 
> >> Might there not be other cases?  Maybe it would be better to permit
> >> it, and maybe (at least in some cases) issue a warning?
> >
> > Or we can wait for this to become an issue.
> 
> No, the chance we have to get this right is now.  We have a first iteration, and
> thanks for all the work that went into it, but let's now polish it based on explicit
> experience, to make it even better.
> 
> > We *could* analyze the set of RFC XML source documents for where
> > vspace is currently used.
> 
> Yes, that would provide additional meaningful data.

I have a vague memory that Tony did look at this so it might be on the old discussion group list.

Jim

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 	Henrik