[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)
mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Tue Aug 24 18:13:18 PDT 2021
Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org> wrote:
>> For internet-drafts (what are they? who cares...) where the YANG might not
>> validate (or might not validate with the version of pyang that the DT uses),
>> how does not reference the problem part?
> I never understood why people are submitting drafts with formal
> descriptions that don’t even parse. I’d suggest we stop doing that.
a) because trying to get help with fixing it.
b) because it has a feature that the *DT*'s copy of pyang doesn't parse
(yet). But, the local version does.
c) because it's a ID about some part of yang that we are enhancing, so the
YANG is a snippet, and isn't intended to be complete on it's own.
>>> (And, as a side effect, having the full schema tree identifier handy
>>> would also help with reading through 40-page YANG specs.)
>> It would be nice if we could reflow the YANG and syntax highlight it.
> Syntax highlighting is one of the applications of type= (and one of the
> reasons why artwork needs to have a proper replacement for type=, given
> that type= means something different for artwork).
> I seem to remember that YANG specs are regularly pretty-printed
> (reformatted) before publishing them; what would “reflowing” add to
> that? Reflowing comments (descriptions etc.)? That would require
> comments to have a reflowable syntax (e.g., one of the markdown
Yes, the descriptions. It's a disaster coordinating what's in the YANG
description, and what's in the document, and keeping them in sync. How much
detail do you put in each part?
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the rfc-interest