Re: [xml2rfc-dev] --table-borders

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 26.01.2022 um 23:52 schrieb Jay Daley:
> ...
>> That was an anti-goal of the 779* design work, which intended to have the xml capture the semantics of the document, and not provide layout instructions. If we do as you suggest, that's a big shift in requirements on the vocabulary, and pushes for much more frequent vocabulary version changes does it not?
>
> We have features such as the newline attribute in the <dl> element that appear to be layout only and Carsten has listed some others below.

That is true, but we really tried to minimize the number of knobs.

*If* we want to provide some control over table styling, a single binary
switch won't be that helpful. Note that we had many more in V2.

>> There will also be (and have been) arguments about including _anything_ in the vocabulary that would influence the behavior of only one of the renderers.
>
> We already have that with the type="svg" attribute of the <artwork> element, which is arguably has a much bigger impact than a table border.

I don't think this falls into the same category.

>> On 27/01/2022, at 11:41 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 26. Jan 2022, at 22:38, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally speaking, I agree with Miek that all formatting should be controlled within the document and not externally in the tool.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>>> So yes, it should go and if the functionality is needed then it should be a new language feature.

At least we shouldn't get us into a situation where there's extra
metadata needed to create the RFC TXT versions (thus all of these should
be the same).

>...
>>
>> The fact that, without Henrik, we have grammar ossification, means that we probably can’t fix anything before we get a v3.1.
>
> We have the XML and Style Guide Change Management Team https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml-sg-cmt/
 > ...

It would be awesome if the visibility of this would be greater. I really
would like to be able to at least *subscribe* to this mailing list so
that I see what's currently discussed.

Just in this month I see a re-opening of an issue (<postal>) which was
supposed to be closed with consensus many months ago, and a discussion
about referenceGroup titles that's related to a vocabulary ticket I
opened over five years ago.

Best regards, Julian