That's right—the source code is the stuff we edit. If the XML is derived, it's not source code in the sense I was talking about, and it's fine to reflow it as needed.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025, at 1:42 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I 100% agree with this for Markdown. If we agree we are doing copy-edit in > and the Markdown tools reflow the text when generating XML, I care less > about that. > > -Ekr > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 1:37 PM Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: >> __ >> Or the RPC could not reformat the source code other than when adding text, >> and then only on the line where the text is added. From the perspective of >> an author, any other reformatting makes it significantly harder to do >> reviews in AUTH48. Speaking from recent experience. >> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025, at 11:52 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: >>> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote: >>> > This thread has become very author-hostile. "You are forced to deal >>> > with changes that are being made to match some people's preferred >>> > viewing of your source material." >>> >>> That's exactly what the RPC does today. >>> >>> If the author hasn't used NSNL, then ANY diff the RPC produces is going to >>> be >>> harder to view. In order to minimize that, they could do NSNL in their >>> editing. Whether or not they reformat EVERYTHING is another question. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
