Hi Balazs, > Hello Kent, > First <CODE BEGIN> <CODE END> is very handy and easier to use then xmllint. > Also some people (not me) are writing RFCs without XML. SO if it acceptable > to you, the RFC editor to whoever I will use <CODE...> for the examples. Is > that acceptable?
Rarely do people need to extract examples from drafts. Those wishing to copy/paste a snippet will likely do so via the HTML version that has its own (and better) way of framing examples. Those wishing to programmatically process/validate the contents of the drafts (e.g., shepherd, RFC Editor, etc.) prefer working off the source XML. > Folding: > Rfcfold folds the line at a fixed 69 character length. This produces some not > so nice results: > Rfcfold: > <inline-schema> > <modules-state xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-li\ > brary"> > <module> > Manual folding: > <inline-schema> > <modules-state \ > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library"> > <module> > The manual folding can keep a nice tabulation and fold the line at a word or > element boundary. I know such editorial niceties are very hard to program in > a script; but this is one reason to do manual folding. Agreed, the artwork-folding draft says this as well. > I used rfcfold to unfold the acme-router-modules example and I don’t notice > anything strange. I remind my comment. I originally thought a couple space characters were missing (e.g., “foo\” should be “foo \”) but scanning again, I don’t see any issues now. Thanks, Kent > Regards Balazs > > From: Kent Watsen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: 2020. március 21., szombat 0:01 > To: Balázs Lengyel <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [netmod] CODE BEGINS ENDS for examples ? > > Hi Balazs, > > As I understand it, the <CODE BEGIN> <CODE END> blocks are not appropriate > for examples. > > Examples are easily extracted from XML via `xmllint` with the “—xpath” > parameter, after which the `rfcfold` script can be run. Strongly recommend > setting the “name” attribute on the <sourcecode> or <artwork> element in the > XML draft. It’s good to see that you want to do it this way, as I noticed > you hand-folded the examples and I’m pretty sure I spotted what looked like > might result in an undesirable unfolding artifact... > > FWIW, https://pypi.org/project/xiax <https://pypi.org/project/xiax> attempts > to do all this, but I suspended that effort getting distracted with other > things... > > Kent // contributor > > > > > On Mar 20, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Balázs Lengyel > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hello, > Is it allowed/recommended to use <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS> around examples. > In my case it would be examples of XML and JSON instance data. I would find > it rather useful. > > As a second step if someone could combine rfcstrip with artwork-unfolding > that would be even better. > Regards Balazs > > -- > Balazs Lengyel Senior Specialist > Ericsson Hungary Ltd. > Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
