Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] feedback for <u>

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 14:09:47 +0200

On 11.04.2019 10:32, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently spent some time on the implementation in rfc2629.xslt (not
> ready yet), and here's more feedback.
>
> 1) Character Repertoire
>
> By the way this is defined, the characters we can express are restricted
> by XML. That is: no controls except HTAB, CR, and LF.
>
> This *might* be considered a problem when documenting protocols where
> controls matter, but I guess this isn't new, and the purpose of <u> is
> mainly to address non-ASCII characters. But it would be interesting see
> whether other people fell different.
>
> I also noticed that the current version of xml2rfc fails in different
> ways when the Unicode database doesn't have the expected entries. Filed
> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/402> for C1
> controls such as HTAB and
> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/401> for C1
> controls.

So this got fixed - thanks, Henrik.

I think however this points at a weakness of the implementation: the
expansion of code points can change in the future if the Unicode
Character Database gets revised (either by renaming characters, or by
adding new ones).

It probably would be good to include the expanded text at the time the
preptool runs.

> 2) Format string
>
> So we have two different format notations (see
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-08#appendix-A.1>).
>
>
> It would be good to document how exactly a processor decides between
> these two. Also, every time placeholders are used I routinely wonder
> whether we might need a way to escape them...

Would love to get feedback on this point...

Best regards, Julian