[rfc-i] [Rfc-markdown] 1.3.34: map most codeblock classes to <sourcecode> instead of <artwork>

Carsten Bormann cabo at tzi.org
Sun Feb 21 16:38:19 PST 2021

>> Sorry, my intent here is probably better visible in the current editor’s version:
>> https://cabo.github.io/mtct/draft-bormann-core-media-content-type-format.html <https://cabo.github.io/mtct/draft-bormann-core-media-content-type-format.html>
> I’m not sure I understand - do you mean that you want it indented to show that you are quoting the ABNF or do mean that you want a different alignment.  I ask because I can’t see a different alignment.

I was essentially trying to separate the ABNF quoted for reference from the ABNF that is part of this specification.
As you can see, this doesn’t work very well in the HTML (better for figure 1, where it is obvious this is centred, than for figure 4).
The distinction is much easier to see in the plaintext, where aside/blockquote get much stronger visual support.

So this may not be the perfect example, but it was a case where I was trying to center source code.

My criticism of the current grammar is that there are lots of arbitrary differences between different contexts in which things can be used, and these arbitrary differences seem to be driven by the combination of (1) a desire to enforce a weird perception of “good style” with (2) a lack of imagination.  Much less of this would probably have happened if the grammar had been properly factorized.  The grammar style to repeat everything everywhere seems to suggest one should endlessly tweak any single one of the clones so they are all subtly different, leading to the current jungle.

CCing rfc-interest, because this is a problem not with, but for writing IETF documents in markdown.

Grüße, Carsten

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210222/cec39669/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list