Subject: [xml2rfc] #413 (Version 2 cli): eref omits angle brackets in text mode

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 20:55:49 -0000

#413: eref omits angle brackets in text mode

 When producing with --text, eref no longer encapsulates the URI with a
 pair of angle brackets.

 I found this in 2.24.0 but it is probably around longer

 I used v3 vocabulary.

 My instance that I found this for was in a <note> at the front of the file

 Can be seen in the note in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-
 rfc8152bis-struct-05

 I don't know if this is new designed behavior or not.

-- 
------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  medium                  |  Milestone:
Component:  Version 2 cli           |    Version:  2.10.x
 Keywords:                          |
------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/413>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:34:31 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked] (added)

Comment:

 I've dithered about this, whether or not to enclose URLs in angle brackets
 in text mode.

 The change was triggered by a desire to keep the text and HTML output
 reasonably similar (the angle brackets are not supposed to be present in
 the HTML rendering) but the change could nevertheless be unwanted.  At one
 point when working on the v3 text renderer, I went back to rendering text
 with angle brackets, and then undid that change again.

 This is probably the point where we ask the RFC Editor what's wanted.

-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Resolution:                          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/413#comment:1>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:44:40 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 My 2 cents:

 I believe keeping the text content for HTML and TXT output in sync is a
 good goal. Otherwise there may be surprises when people copy & paste from
 different output format into email.

 For rfc2629.xslt and v2 time, that meant for me to always use angle
 brackets, as the TXT output was the default publication format, and I
 didn't want the HTML output to be differ.

 For the future, as TXT output is not considered ... that important
 anymore, I would proposed to reverse that: meaning no angle brackets in
 both formats. In any case, I believe both should be consistent.

 And yes, that's something the RFC Editor should decide (and the document).

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/413#comment:2>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 18:43:00 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 My 2 cents:

 I believe that the important thing is to highlight it is a URI and that is
 the fact that should be kept in sync rather than the exact set of
 characters that are displayed.  I don't remember what, if any, decisions
 where made for em et al are where currently you get things like _foo_ in
 the text version.

 I agree - it should be pushed to the RFC editor.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/413#comment:3>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>