[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

tom petch daedulus at btconnect.com
Wed Aug 25 04:49:54 PDT 2021


On 25/08/2021 02:13, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> 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.

d) because the fault is in someone else's document that this is building 
on so get on with what we can while waiting for the author of the other 
document (months or longer).

Tom Petch


>      >>> (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).
>
> Yes.
>
>      > Reflowing:
>      > 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
>      > flavors).
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list