>> Those are torture tests, but they due illustrate the one case where having
>> the '\\n' on the fold column would've been illegal input (and hence the '\'
>> was replaced with a 'x'). Great for internal algorithm validation, but
>> perhaps unnecessary for the example in the text. Or maybe enhance the
>> comments above these lines to explain why they're there?
>
> I suggest you remove this.
Okay.
>> > I like the algorithm in the other draft better - it had variable
>> > placement of the line break ("\\n" sequence), and variable
>> > indentation.
>>
>> How can you automated variable placement of the line-break, assuming no
>> awareness of the file format? Additionally, be aware that variable '\n'
>> placement would necessitate pre-scanning the file to ensure *no* line
>> ends in a '\\n', as opposed to just the lines that need folding.
>
> I envision this format being used not just by a program, but also by
> humans trying to construct nice looking examples.
I really hope humans don't try to do this manually, as the results are
error-prone, and it isn't consistent with the goal of integrating validation
in the build scripts that compile the drafts, for which automated-folding
is needed (see section 3.1). I'm not saying that manual-folding shouldn't
be possible, I'm saying that it is ill-advised, and we shouldn't go out of
our way to support it. I do not support variable placement of the
line-break.
[Note: indentation of the beginning of the line is a different issue, and
one that I actually support, assuming it is easily automatable]
> Also, I would prefer a description of the format, rather than of one
> algorithm that produces the format.
Okay, we will look into it.
>> >> >> - handle two special case on backslash and space at the end of broken
>> >> >> line in yang-xml-doc-conventions.
>> >> >> - propose to use <WRAPPED TEXT BEGIN><WRAPPED TEXT END> to extract
>> >> >> artwork from I-Ds.
>> >> >
>> >> > The artwork draft proposes only a header, which means that it is not
>> >> > quite clear where the artwork ends.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting point, but I think that artwork-framing is a different problem
>> >> from artwork-folding. If the goal is to support extracting artwork from
>> >> txt-based RFC scripts, regardless if the artwork is folded or not, then we
>> >> could level-up this draft to that role, while still supporting folding.
>> >>
>> >> If we were to add a footer, maybe something like this:
>> >>
>> >> ===padding=== End Folding per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) ===padding===
>> >>
>> >> where the "padding" fills in '=' characters until the max-line width is
>> >> reached (same as how the header is done).
>> >
>> > Ok.
>>
>> I assume that you're okay-ing the proposed footer, but the real question is
>> if we should expand the scope of this draft to include artwork-framing also?
>
> I think I would prefer if there is also a footer.
Why? Do you propose the same for all artwork, regardless if it's been folded
or not? To me, these are different issues.
>> >> >> In the artwork draft, section 5.3, you write:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This line is self-describing in
>> >> >> three ways: use of '\' character, identification of BCP/RFC, and
>> >> >> identification of what the maximum line length is for the artwork.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I was confused about this maximum line length; it seems you define the
>> >> > maximum line length ot be 53, but that seems too limiting, and indeed
>> >> > in the example in 5.4 the max line length is 69. (BTW, the example is
>> >> > missing in the draft, as is the shell script in Appendix A). In any
>> >> > case, I don't see how the header identifies the max line length.
>> >>
>> >> The draft says that the *minimal* header string is 53-characters). We
>> >> can make it less if needed, but it involves needing to fold the header
>> >> itself, which could become messy. Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> Per the line just before the one quoted above, this line is '=' padded
>> >> on both sides until reaching the max value. Apparently, this isn't
>> >> clear enough in the text, or do you think it's okay now?
>> >
>> > The draft says:
>> >
>> > The header is two lines long.
>> >
>> > The first line is the following 53-character string
>> >
>> > This is what made me confused. I now understand that the idea is to pad
>> > with '='.
>>
>> Right, the full sentence is:
>>
>> The first line is the following 53-character string that has been
>> padded with roughly equal numbers of equal ('=') characters to reach
>> the artwork's maximum line length.
>>
>> So, leave as is for now?
>
> Well ... I don't think this text is even correct... The section
> describes the header with the first line being 53 characters. But
> that is just an example. Maybe:
>
> The first line is an N-character string on the following form:
>
> === NOTE: '\' line wrapping per BCP XX (RFC XXXX) ===
>
> where N is the artwork's maximum length (the minimum length is
> 53). The string is padded with roughly equal numbers of equal
> ('=') characters in the beginning and end to reach the artwork's
> maximum line length.
Yes, this is better
> ... but as I wrote, I'd prefer a variable-length format.
Understood, being discussed above.
> /martin
Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
