Re: [xml2rfc-dev] <artset> feedback

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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."

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


>> 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.

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

> ...

Best regards, Julian