[rfc-i] On blockquotes and notes for v3

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 24 14:21:54 PST 2014

On Monday, February 24, 2014, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Monday, February 24, 2014, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu');>>
> wrote:
>> On 2/24/14 1:01 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> No, I want nesting of t and blockquote (since one might quoted someone's
>>> quoting of someone else) to express indentation.  Indentation (and by
>>> how much!) is an output format rendering detail!  Our inputs need to
>>> express semantics (the following is a quote, or the following needs to
>>> be inset/indented/whatever to distinguish it from surrounding text, ...).
>> This doesn't work for me.
>> <t> describes a *paragraph*. A blockquote is often a standalone
>> paragraph. It would be annoying to have to write <t><blockquote>...</
>> blockquote></t>.
> I didn't say you'd have to do that.  I want to be able to do this:
> <section ...>
>   <t>This is a paragraph.</>
>   <blockquote cite="...">This is a quote.</blockquote>
>   <t>Blah blah
>     <t>Indented stuff</>
>   more blah blah</>
> </section>
> I don't want to have an indent="6" or whatever attribute.

Although frankly, I don't mind nesting blockquote in t either.  Look, XML
demands strict containership, and notionally indentation should be
expressed as indentation.  Now we might define blockquote as indenting by
six columns in some output formats, while t only indents by three -- that's
details of rendering, details we shouldn't embed in the source.  xml2rfc
should mostly not deal with low-level style except where the RFC-Editor
needs a way to adjust rendering.  Kinda like HTML and CSS.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140224/a8d66cb3/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list