IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Mon, 01 October 2018 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.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 3086E130E19 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 12:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 83_vjxWR0d7k for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [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 C50B61293FB for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-37-140.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([94.254.37.140]:64288 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 1g74G2-0003d8-T7; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 12:53:31 -0700
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>
References: <E1g6wQ8-00057n-85@durif.tools.ietf.org> <70ee4cff-7533-13e0-d71a-ffecf2dc56f0@gmx.de> <24828f94-dbbd-4c18-8d85-333487bda367@levkowetz.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <3ac63652-2df2-03c7-eee6-bad2cbd326d8@levkowetz.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 21:53:23 +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: <24828f94-dbbd-4c18-8d85-333487bda367@levkowetz.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jGc9WuSg3Aoda1NehKhKRF72ub6OLSeQa"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.254.37.140
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, miek@miek.nl, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
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/xml2rfc-dev/KAbjh9WvIQTo-5c-v0IGHt8y854>
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: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 19:53:33 -0000

Hi Miek,

On 2018-10-01 19:11, Miek Gieben wrote:
> Are we still expecting humans to write this XML directly? I ask because the
> number of one-offs is already staggering (esp. with attribute naming and
> the number of them).
> 
> I would hope to see some simplification of the spec, which I this case
> means allowing br in more places or disallowing the element entirely.

The more I think about this, the more I realise it is a very very good
point, and could also be a very important point.

In draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes, I notice that of the
16 RFC 7991 schema-related issues, 7 address schema irregularities or
inconsistencies of one kind or another.  In order to make this easier on
both people who manually write draft XML, and on tool creators who generate
draft XML from other sources, I think we should make it an explicit goal of
the next revision to simplify and regularize the vocabulary.

Best regards,

	Henrik

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 12:44 Julian Reschke, <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
>> As far as I recall, we ended up with the limited use of <br> because
>> forcing a line break inside a table cell sometimes really is needed, while
>> otherwise it's not. I agree consistency is nice, but this may be a case
>> where the current approach is the right one.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email