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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml2rfc-dev <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Paul
> Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 11:11 AM
> To: Miek Gieben <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #37: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In
> Section 2.12, <br>
> 
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Miek Gieben <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [ Quoting <[e-mail]> in "Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue
> #3..." ]
> >> I just thought of something different that might deal with Miek's
issue:
> change the name of the element to <tbr>. That will prevent people who
"know"
> what <br> "means" from expecting it to work because <br> doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> If, later, we want to add <br> for running text (with lots of
description of
> what it will and will not do to displayed RFCs), we can do so then.
> >
> > What's the problem for just allowing it ~everywhere (ala HTML); and go
by
> the motto: garbage in; garbage out?
> 
> See previous answers. We don't want "garbage in", these are long-lived
> documents. We want documents that are well-structured and well-searchable
> and so on.
> 
> > I wonder who can honestly say that they can write 7991 XML *without*
> having the spec next to them.

The main reason that I know of for doing a <br> is to break paragraphs in a
list item.  This is no longer necessary as you can now have more than one
<t> as a child of an item which was not previously possible.   I think this
should be left as is.

Well, I can honestly say that I can currently write about 90% of the v2
grammar without needing to consult a specification for it.  I will admit
that I do use a template as a starting point, but I would assume that would
be normal case for writing v3 documents from scratch as well.   There are
probably some corner cases that might be done better, but that is going to
be true no matter what I use to write documents in.  I find it harder to
remember all of the ways to use markdown than I ever did to write XML.

Jim

> 
> Most likely not. Nor could they do that with the current v2 format if they
did
> anything more than paragraphs and sections.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman