IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] [xml2rfc-dev] [Tools-discuss] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Fri, 20 January 2023 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6143FC152574; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 05:47:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPWb_ATxMvGq; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 05:47:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [92.243.22.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74413C14EB18; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 05:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2601:204:e37f:a6af:d250:99ff:fedf:93cf] (unknown [IPv6:2601:204:e37f:a6af:d250:99ff:fedf:93cf]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05BCEAE232; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:47:48 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <be1626d0-5746-d2b9-533f-820d65451069@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 05:47:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>, Kesara Rathnayake <kesara@staff.ietf.org>, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
References: <CAD2=Z87EMetcpv66YY_b2+X1-yFy4cTpKMjPoJL=cH99c7P_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9d719176-a4eb-7cce-e706-10325700531c@petit-huguenin.org> <53566677-148e-d945-fd8f-9c289db62036@amsl.com> <91db90d9-263b-3a32-bdfb-906f3ffbb849@petit-huguenin.org> <d893f4c1-45a9-1010-ae8f-6b916ddd9d69@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
In-Reply-To: <d893f4c1-45a9-1010-ae8f-6b916ddd9d69@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------S6w20c4KqSB9uh2B7LbW3MmB"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/JDD7u9HDDqLPsca-hU-Lom9k6pQ>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] [xml2rfc-dev] [Tools-discuss] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: XML2RFC discussion list <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:47:57 -0000

On 1/19/23 21:26, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 02:25, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> 
>> On 1/19/23 08:10, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>> Marc,
>>>
>>> RFC 7997 provides guidance on the use of non-ASCII; however, xml2rfc was too restrictive in its enforcing of it.
>>>
>>> Please see the announcement of RSAB's decision regarding this here:
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/LtZcNiVXhkG8R1XLd5pyO-LE1Xo/
>>
>> Obviously I think that the RSAB is wrong here, and I see that as a tactic to go around RFC 7997.  At a very minimum an RFC 7991 bis should be published, so I can scream at it.
> 
> As already said, RFC 7991 doesn't mention <u> at all. If we/the tools/the RPC followed RFC 7991 strictly, this issue wouldn't even have arisen. So if you need to scream at something, why not scream at RFC 7991?
> 
> But I guess you should have a bit more trust in the RPC. Please wait with screaming until you see the first RFC that indeed violates RFC 7997. Or maybe even better, please comment on any last-called drafts that violate RFC 7997.

Then why bother with xml2rfc at all?  Why not just write our documents in Notepad and let the RPC figure out what we mean?

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status