[rfc-i] How to indent artwork with surrounding block

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Feb 16 06:52:40 PST 2016

On 15 Feb 2016, at 23:08, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2016-02-16 07:06, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> On 2/15/16, 1:37 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> ...which reminds me about the fact that there are things other 
>>>>> than
>>>>> <sourcecode> that require a mono-spaced font / no formatting, but 
>>>>> should
>>>>> be indented like the surrounding text, namely examples. What do we 
>>>>> do
>>>>> with those?
>>>> I think the semantic for those is pretty close to artwork.  Perhaps 
>>>> we could add "block-left", "block-right", and "block-center" to the 
>>>> artwork/@align attribute?  If that's too much (which I think it 
>>>> might be), we could just add "block".
>>> My preference would be not to overload "align". It's not "artwork", 
>>> so
>>> it'll be more consistent to have another element that it like
>>> sourcecode, just not with the semantics of embedding "code".
>> For a lot of examples, I wouldn't mind having them in a <sourcecode>. 
>>  Can you talk more about the semantics you're looking for, and how 
>> they differ from <sourcecode>?
> Well, apart from the misleading name:
> 1) different styling by default
> 2) implications with respect to the copyright (does it imply <CODE 
> BEGINS> etc...)?

I am in general in favor of <example> because of his #2 reason. Because 
the IETF went down the twisty road of having special rules for code in 
RFCs, it would be good to be able to say "this bit of monospace text 
that is set out on its own is, in fact, not source code". FWIW, I'm 
strongly opposed to "different styling by default" because doing so will 
just confuse the reader.

I am also OK with achieving the semantics of "this is not source code" 
by <sourcecode isCode="false"> but that seems weirder than just making a 
new element.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list