Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.12, <br>

[levkowetz]

In Section 2.12, <br>

A number of elements permits a mixed content model (see Section "Mixed
Content Model"): <li>, <blockquote>, <dd>, <td>, and <th>. However,
when using the simpler of the two content schemas, two of them (<td> and
<th>) permit inline line breaks through the use of <br> elements; the
others do not. This seems terribly arbitrary.

Recommendation: Remove the <br> element completely. Alternatively,
permit it to be used all places that 'text' and non-
block elements may be used (that is, in inline
context).

Implementation: The current version of xml2rfc renders <br> as a
newline in all inline contexts.

[reschke]

As far as I recall, we ended up with the limited use of <br> because forcing a line break inside a table cell sometimes really is needed, while otherwise it's not. I agree consistency is nice, but this may be a case where the current approach is the right one.

[miekg]

Are we still expecting humans to write this XML directly? I ask because the number of one-offs is already staggering (esp. with attribute naming and the number of them). I would hope to see some simplification of the spec, which I this case means allowing br in more places or disallowing the element entirely.

…

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 12:44 Julian Reschke, ***@***.***> wrote: As far as I recall, we ended up with the limited use of <br> because forcing a line break inside a table cell sometimes really is needed, while otherwise it's not. I agree consistency is nice, but this may be a case where the current approach is the right one. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVkWys0zBzHCCrqrI1ffVhvKHNVMEqpks5uggAUgaJpZM4XB4Dl> .

[reschke]

Are we still expecting humans to write this XML directly? I ask because the
Some will.

number of one-offs is already staggering (esp. with attribute naming and
the number of them).

What do you mean by "one-off"?

I would hope to see some simplification of the spec, which I this case
means allowing br in more places or disallowing the element entirely.

Well, I explained why it is like it is right now (as far as I recall). I also think that these reasons are more important than consistency.

Do you think that you need
in other places?

Do you think that we can get rid of it in table cells?

[levkowetz]

From the list:

On 2018-10-06 01:13, Heather Flanagan wrote:

The design team had a goal of requiring semantic meaning for all tags
(we didn't quite get there, but it was a design goal) and getting the
author out of the business of fiddling with the rendering. The team was
probably a bit too focused on the latter, and didn't take into account
some of the use cases that have been discussed on that thread. Still, it
is an important consideration since it impacts the time the editors have
to spend on layout as opposed to content (granted, these aren't always
mutually exclusive).

So, all that said, I'm particularly concerned about the ambiguity that

is introducing here, making tooling that much more complicated.
After reading all the arguments, I'm going to say we remove

entirely from the XML v3 spec. It's not adding enough value to support
the confusion it's causing.

[TonyLHansen]

Please re-open, based on evidence that the RPC needs the capability, and
is better than the alternatives. Or fork into another new issue.

[stpeter]

During discussion in the XML change management team, the RPC reported that this feature is indeed useful at times to provide fine-grained control over line breaks in table cells especially, so retaining the feature seems like the best route for now.

[TonyLHansen]

Should the alternative that Henrik recommended be chosen instead?

"Alternatively,
permit it to be used all places that 'text' and non-
block elements may be used (that is, in inline
context)."