[rfc-i] Text rendering of <spanx style=verb> and <tt>

Henrik Levkowetz henrik at levkowetz.com
Mon Dec 17 05:51:10 PST 2018


Hi Jeffrey,

On 2018-12-17 06:02, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Right now, xml2rfc's text output renders RFC7749's <spanx style=verb>
> and RFC7991's <tt> by surrounding the contents with double quotes (").
> This is ambiguous with actual quoted strings in the body of the RFC.
> 
> This confused an area director in the review of CDDL
> (https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D4234#inline-7837), and has
> led to an apparent consensus in the HTTPWG not to use these pieces of
> the XML markup at all
> (https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/738).
> 
> It seems silly to leave traps like this, where a piece of markup is
> defined, and useful in the HTML output, but actually forbidden in any
> RFC that wants to be published.
> 
> An ASCII alternative could be to wrap the contents in backticks (`)
> instead of quotes, but this would break any v2 documents that describe
> the effect of <spanx style=verb> in words.

I think that if it's the right thing to do to change the double quotes to
backticks for <tt> and 'verb', then we could do so, even if it changes the
v2 renderer.

> Doing it for just v3 (<tt>)
> might force the automatic v2->v3 conversion to leave <spanx
> style=verb> alone instead of converting that to <tt>.

No, I'd leave that conversion in place, even if the rendering differs
between v2 and v3.  There are other places where the rendering differs,
too, when there are good reasons for that.

> Do folks have other ideas for removing the trap? Do folks agree that
> the trap is worth removing?

Yes, I'd like to hear from more people before making changes.


Best regards,

	Henrik (maintainer)




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20181217/38a7a503/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list