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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 10/4/2018 10:46 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> ...
> However:
> 
>    1) would you agree that the use of non-breaking space would be a
>       workaround, rather than a proper solution for document and
>       section titles, as well as for table cells?

I think it is a workaround for *document* titles. I don't believe it's 
needed anywhere else. I also don't think we need something new for 
document titles - it's a solved problem.

>    2) <br> makes it much more convenient to get the desired layout in
>       cells than using rowspan and cell-splitting?

Yes.

>    3) <br> would be better than the use of artwork in order to write
>       RFC 1605, and probably other April 1st RFCs, too?

If they contain poems, maybe. So far April 1st RFCs haven't been a 
design consideration.

If we *need* poems in RFCs, let's have a proper element for them.

>    4) Disallowing <br> in all cases except for table cells requires
>       (repeatedly, to new author after new author), explaining that an
>       obvious usage of an obvious element is forbidden in so-and-so
>       case?

That explanation will be needed in any case. Just because it's allowed 
by the grammar doesn't mean the use is ok. Not having it in the grammar 
will just surface the problem earlier (otherwise likely only in AUTH48 
which is *very* late).

> All in all, what do we really loose by permitting <br> more generally?
> 
> I certainly believe it would make life easier for a lot of authors, and
> for the people who would not have to explain again and again why a draft
> author cannot use <br> in _that_ particular title or text.

The point being: when we discussed this we decided we don't want to give 
authors control over line breaking; except in this specific exception in 
table cells.

Best regards, Julian