Re: [xml2rfc-dev] <artset> feedback

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-05-10 19:02, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 10.05.2019 18:05, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi Julian,
>>
>> On 2019-05-10 17:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 10.05.2019 12:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2019-05-10 11:38, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> On 10.05.2019 11:25, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Yes. What makes you think it's not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When did v2 get support for handling both a 'src' attribute and textual
>>>>>> content in <artwork>?
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> For at least ten years, I'd say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excerpt from rfc5598.xml, dated July 2009:
>>>>>
>>>>>>           <artwork
>>>>>>           align="center"
>>>>>>           alt="[ User, MHS, User Service Model ]"
>>>>>>           name="Basic Internet Mail Service Model"
>>>>>>           src="email-arch-fig-svcmodel.png"
>>>>>>           type="image/png">
>>>>>> <![CDATA[
>>>>>>                                  +--------+
>>>>>>               ++================>|  User  |
>>>>>>               ||                 +--------+
>>>>>>               ||                      ^
>>>>>> +--------+  ||          +--------+  .
>>>>>> |  User  +==++=========>|  User  |  .
>>>>>> +---+----+  ||          +--------+  .
>>>>>>       .       ||               ^      .
>>>>>>       .       ||   +--------+  .      .
>>>>>>       .       ++==>|  User  |  .      .
>>>>>>       .            +--------+  .      .
>>>>>>       .                 ^      .      .
>>>>>>       .                 .      .      .
>>>>>>       V                 .      .      .
>>>>>> +---+-----------------+------+------+---+
>>>>>> |   .                 .      .      .   |
>>>>>> |   .................>.      .      .   |
>>>>>> |   .                        .      .   |
>>>>>> |   ........................>.      .   |
>>>>>> |   .                               .   |
>>>>>> |   ...............................>.   |
>>>>>> |                                       |
>>>>>> |     Message Handling Service (MHS)    |
>>>>>> +---------------------------------------+
>>>>
>>>> And what was the v2 handling of this?
>>>
>>> If by "v2" you refer to the spec, the answer is over here:
>>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#element.artwork>.
>>
>> No, Julian.  That is not the _spec_ for v2.  That is a retroactive
>> best-effort attempt at describing what v2 tools did, and very useful
>> as such.  If there is a _spec_ for the vocabulary before RFC 7991, it
>> would be RFC 2629.
> 
> No. The abstract says:
> 
> "Version 2 represents the state of the vocabulary (as implemented by
> several tools and as used by the RFC Editor) around 2014."

As an analysis of the state of things, yes.  As a specification, no.

What I was attempting to say in the comment above, put in different
words, was that we've not had any _specification_ between 2629 and 7991.

> So this is version 2 of the vocabulary (as spoken in 2014), opposed to
> v1 (RFC 2629) and v3 (RFC 7991).

It's a retrospective analysis of the vocabulary, yes.  And as you know,
we've found discrepancies since it was published.  It's not the
specification.  It's been very useful, but please don't try to represent
it as something that it isn't.

>>> But if you refer to the v2 impl (Python-based), as opposed to the
>>> original TCL implementation: I don't know.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>> That RFC was produced with
>>> the old tool.
>>
>> Aha?  So that's HTML from the TCL tool, not from your XSLT processor?
> 
> The published PDF was generated using rfc2629toFO.xslt. The published
> text was published my submitting XML to the RFC Editor, and they
> presumably used the TCL processor to generate nroff.

I'm asking about the HTML you pointed to.

> If your question is whether the TCL version processed artwork/@src: yes,
> it did (when generating HTML). Even for SVG. Try yourself.

I don't have a TCL installation which will let me do that.  Which is why
I'm asking.


	Henrik