Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [Ext] Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] <br> is back, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.32.0

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-10-29 08:08, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
>>> I didn’t reply to your summary because I thought we had a conclusion.
>> 
>> Here’s what I've understood so far:
> 
> […]
> 
> Right. I thought we had a conclusion on the one(*) RFC-to-be that
> uses &br; (RFC 8668, which needs a break in a list item), I don’t
> think we have reached one for the whole issue.
>
>> Available in many places, but position on title unclear to me:
> 
> Not sure I wrote this already, but in case I didn’t, let me point out:
> 
> — In many cases, people use breaks to express what actually are keeps.  
>   Given varying widths, it is better to be able to express the actual keeps.

Mmm.  I'm not sure what you mean by keeps.  However, I think there are
places where a preferred break-point -- call it maybe-break -- would be
more useful than <br/>.

> 
> — Having said that, not having a break in a certain place may motivate putting in a dash, as in
> 
>       Quantities and units
>       Part 13: Information science and technology
> 
>   vs.
> 
>       Quantities and units – Part 13: Information science and technology
> 
>   To express this, one would need a <break-or-dash/> element.
> 
> Maybe it is good enough to always keep the dash and just prefer
> breaking after it:
> 
>       Quantities and units —
>       Part 13: Information science and technology
> 
>   This could be coded as
> 
>       <keep>Quantities and units —</keep> <keep>Part 13: Information science and technology</keep>

Oh, I see.  I think expressing that through maybe-break (<mbr/> ???) would
be easier for authors, but the functionality would be the same (I think).

Regards,

	Henrik

> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> (*) Hmm. RFC 8626?  This can be worked around by splitting the blockquote.  
> I’m not sure I understand the relationship to RFC 8655, where this
> was done already.