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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 29.10.2019 07:31, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
> On 2019-10-29 07:16, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 06:50, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22.10.2019 18:59, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 18.10.2019 19:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/19 10:33 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
>>>>>> I don’t think we'll need <br> in titles; it's sufficient to have wj,
>>>>>> nbsp, and nbhy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. Do you feel the same about <name>, which has similar semantics?
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I would think so (/me not Sandy, though).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I think we *do* have consensus about introducing <br> in certain
>>>> places where prose is allowed. It would be good to implement that so
>>>> that the spec(s?) that is in AUTH48 can move forward.
>>>>
>>>> We can always revisit this and add <br> in more places when the need
>>>> comes up, and we have looked at alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>
>>> No feedback? One more week has passed, and this really looks like
>>> something that should have top priority…
>>
>> Feedback from whom?
>> I didn’t reply to your summary because I thought we had a conclusion.
>
> Here's what I've understood so far:
>
> <br> generally available:
>
> 	Brian
> 	Miek
> 	Tony
> 	Henrik
>
> Generally Available except maybe in title:
>
> 	Sandy
>
> Available except in title and name:
>
> 	Julian
>
> Limited availability (only in some named tags)
>
> 	Paul
>
> Available in many places, but position on title unclear to me:
>
> 	Carsten
> ...

As a first step, I'd make it available exactly where the production
center needs it right now, so that the publication process can proceed.

(I think that means "in <t>" right now)

Best regards, Julian