Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net> wrote:
>
>
> > [RW]
> > Yes, I think that is better, and probably OK.
> >
> > I still slightly question “One strategy is based on the time-proven use of
> > a single backslash ('\') character to indicate where line-folding has
> > occurred, with the continuation occurring with the first non-space (' ')
> > character on the next line.” Because I don’t think that is how ‘\’
> > character works, at least in languages such as C. Specifically, it doesn’t
> > ignore leading whitespace on the following line, instead it is often used
> > where that whitespace is not significant to the compiler.
>
> Would s/time-proven/POSIX/ be better?
If you write POSIX I think you need a reference. Is there really a
POSIX standard for how a single backslash is used...?
I think "time-proven" is better.
/martin
>
> BTW, I also added this to Appendix A:
>
> Shell-level end-of-line backslash ('\') characters have been
> purposely added to the script so as to ensure that the script is
> itself not folded in this document, thus simplify the ability to
> copy/paste the script for local use. As should be evident by the
> lack of the mandatory header described in Section 7.1.1, these
> backslashes do not designate a folded line, such as described in
> Section 7.
>
>
>
>
> > [RW]
> > Perhaps “original text content” -> “exact original text content”? But I’m
> > also OK with your suggested text.
>
> I'm hesitant, because it seems redundant, but it doesn't cause harm, so I
> added it.
>
>
>
> > [RW]
> > According to RFC2119, RECOMMENDED is interpreted exactly the same way as
> > SHOULD.
>
> Yes, when composing my response before I was going to say that it's a
> downgrade "(in IMO)", but figured it would require more explanation, which I
> was hoping to avoid. But here we are now ;) While I'm aware that they
> carry the same RFC 2119 weight, RECOMMENDED reads softer to me, less
> commanding, hence my comment.
>
>
>
> > I still think that SHOULD/RECOMMENDED is too strong.
>
> I still disagree. Any tie-breakers out there?
>
>
>
> > Good point, how about this?
> >
> > Scan the text content to ensure no existing lines already end with a
> > backslash ('\') character while the subsequent line starts with a
> > backslash ('\') character as the first non-space (' ') character, as
> > this could lead to an ambiguous result. If such a line is found, and
> > its width is less than the desired maximum, then it SHOULD be flagged
> > for forced folding (folding even though unnecessary). If the folding
> > implementation doesn't support forced foldings, it MUST exit.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > For each line in the text content, from top-to-bottom, if the line
> > exceeds the desired maximum, or requires a forced folding, then fold
> > the line by:
> >
> >
> > [RW]
> > OK.
>
> Great. BTW, I also added this to Appendix A:
>
> This script does not implement the "forced folding" logic described
> in Section 8.2.1. In such cases the script will exit with the
> message:
>
> Error: infile has a line ending with a '\\' character
> followed by a '\\' character as the first non-space
> character on the next line. This file cannot be folded.
>
>
>
>
> Kent // author
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
