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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 10/3/2018 2:13 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> ...
> Yes, I've run that through the current text processor, and I particularly
> looked at it when working on table rendering.
> 
> Where is it you need <br> to make this come out right?

In the titles, at least if we want to reproduce what the RFC has.

> So the conclusion would be to eliminate <br>, then ...
> 
>>> Please note that my suggestion was to either remove <br> altogether, or
>>> permit it in inline context consistently.  I don't care that much about
>>> which choice we make, but I still haven't seen any concrete example that
>>> shows why it makes sense to disallow it in one context, and not the other.
>>
>> My concern is that when people can't get the table output they want,
>> they'll fall back to artwork, which isn't helpful. See
>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7541.html#huffman.code>.
> 
> Understood.  I still don't see the problem with permitting <br> generally --
> the argument about going to artwork has some validity also for body text
> if people can't get the output they want.

That is true, but I'm prepared to argue that if they want to enforce a 
line break in running text, they are doing something wrong.

Best regards, Julian