Subject: [Xml-sg-cmt] Fwd: [xml2rfc] #548 (v3 vocabulary): Invalid XML entities inserted by v2v3 converter

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:01:07 -0500

Re: a recent conversation.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [xml2rfc] #548 (v3 vocabulary): Invalid XML entities 
inserted by v2v3 converter
Date: 	Wed, 28 Apr 2021 04:27:15 -0000
From: 	xml2rfc issue tracker <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]
CC: 	[email-masked]

#548: Invalid XML entities inserted by v2v3 converter

Comment (by [email-masked]):

I'm in the process of reviewing QUIC documents for AUTH48 and the presence
of entities is causing significant problems with the post-processing that
is necessary. A standard XML parser cannot process the XML that is
produced.

The python XML parser drops these entity references. I understand that
lxml can be taught these, but using lxml would force the use of a
different processing model, which would require that I rewrite a tool
completely. I can't justify that.

While I appreciate that the RPC want this feature, it should not be the
case that others are forced to deal with the problems that it causes.
Surely there are other ways that the needs of the RPC can be accommodated.
Inserting the definitions directly rather than referencing a non-existent
file, perhaps.

-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------
   Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
       Type:  enhancement               |     Status:  under_review
   Priority:  medium                    |  Milestone:
  Component:  v3 vocabulary             |    Version:
Resolution:                            |   Keywords:
---------------------------------------+--------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/548#comment:4>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Apr 2021 11:19:36 -0400

> Re: a recent conversation.

Are these &br; or something else?

> Inserting the definitions directly rather than referencing a non-existent

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:27:55 -0500

> Are these &br; or something else?

A handful somethng elses (I thought you were there for this 
conversation, but maybe I misremember):

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/browser/trunk/cli/xml2rfc/templates/rfc2629-xhtml.ent

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Apr 2021 11:32:35 -0400

> A handful somethng elses (I thought you were there for this conversation, but 
> maybe I misremember):
>

I was, just looked at the notes and remembered.

It seems like it would be pretty easy to do a temporary kludge that runs 
through a XML file and puts the entity definitions at the top.

Regards,