Re: [xml2rfc-dev] <artset> feedback

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 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?
 
> But just because the rewritten tool failed to implement
> that doesn't make the syntax suddenly invalid.

No, it doesn't, quite right.


	Henrik