Hi Martin,
>> When a larger document contains multiple instances of text content
>> that may need to be folded or unfolded, it is assumed that another
>> process inserts/extracts the individual text content instances to/
>> from the larger document prior to utilizing the algorithms described
>> in this section. For example, the `xiax` utility [xiax] does this.
>
> Well, again I don't really understand why we need to assume _anything_
> about how the author decides to implement this format.
removed the word "assumed", now text reads:
When a larger document contains multiple instances of text content
that may need to be folded or unfolded, another process must insert/
extract the individual text content instances to/from the larger
document prior to utilizing the algorithms described in this section.
For example, the `xiax` utility [xiax] does this.
> I would just remove this paragraph.
This paragraph and others like it were added by others that thought that this
algorithm was intended to process an entire I-D or RFC.
> On second thought, this text doesn't have to mention when SBS can't be
> used.
Okay, not changed.
>>> o 7.2.1
>>>
>>> I don't understand why there is a min limit of 46 characters for
>>> folding to work. If the only reason is for the non-normative script
>>> to be able to center the header line, then I think this limitation
>>> should be removed. (I would even prefer less flexibility in the
>>> header line syntax...)
>>
>> This is because we never defined how to handle folding the header
>> itself. I wrote about this a while back and no-one seemed bothered by
>> the limitation. The effort/value ration isn't there. The need to
>> fold less than 69-characters is unlikely, and less than 46-characters
>> seems even more so.
>
> IMO we could remove this arbitrary limitaion and still leave the
> header alone.
Not arbitrary, as explained, leaving as is.
>>> o 7.2.1 / 7.2.2
>>>
>>> I don't think the text should assume that folding/unfolding is
>>> "automated".
>>
>> Both sections clearly state that authors may do the equivalent
>> manually, or do you mean that the word "automated" in these sections
>> isn't adding much value and could/should be removed?
>
> Right:
>
> OLD:
>
> Folding is assumed to be automated although authors may perform the
> folding steps manually.
>
> Determine the desired maximum line length from input to the automated
> line-wrapping process,
>
> NEW:
>
> Determine the desired maximum line length from input to the
> line-wrapping process,
Fixed (in 8.2.1 also)
You supplied text for 7.2.1, but also mentioned 7.2.2 (and ~ 8.2.2) originally.
For these sections, the appropriate change is to remove the first paragraph,
which I did (in my local copy). Specifically:
OLD:
All unfolding is assumed to be automated although a reader will
mentally perform the act of unfolding the text to understand the true
nature of the original text content.
NEW:
<deleted>
Kent // author
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
