Subject: [Xml-sg-cmt] suggestion to add a new sourcecode type: sh

From: Sandy Ginoza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 06:30:15 -0700

Hi team,

The discussion below is with Ben Kaduk regarding RFC-to-be 9052, which is currently in AUTH48.  Should “sh” be added to the list of sourcecode types?  

>> b) In general, please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
>> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
>> values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
>> -->
> 
… 

> The "gem install ..." and "diag2cbor.rb" commands could use type="bash".
> (But really, it's suitable for any unix shell.  Why is there no "sh" type
> for plain POSIX sh?).

You can see the files here: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9052.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9052.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9052.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9052.txt

Thanks,
Sandy

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Sep 2021 13:03:28 -0400

> The discussion below is with Ben Kaduk regarding RFC-to-be 9052, which is currently in AUTH48.  Should “sh” be added to the list of sourcecode types?

Yes, it's a programming languge.  I've certainly written enough shell 
scripts.

Niggly details: Unix has a whole bunch of command shells.  The original 
one is called "sh", and there are a bunch of upward compatible versions 
called bash, ksh, and zsh, so they're all "sh" scripts.  But of course 
there is also a different incompatible shell called "csh" with improved 
version tcsh.  If anyone tries to put a csh script in an RFC I'll see if I 
can talk them out of it.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:11:32 -0600

On 9/10/21 11:03 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>> The discussion below is with Ben Kaduk regarding RFC-to-be 9052, which
>> is currently in AUTH48.  Should “sh” be added to the list of
>> sourcecode types?
> 
> version tcsh.  If anyone tries to put a csh script in an RFC I'll see if
> I can talk them out of it.

I might name it "shell" rather than "sh" but YMMV.

Peter

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Sep 2021 13:17:29 -0400

> I might name it "shell" rather than "sh" but YMMV.

Seems reasonable.  I can't think of anything other language called shell 
but SH is also the place where Napoleon was exiled.

Regards,

---

From: Sandy Ginoza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:38:58 -0700

Ok - I added “shell” to the list. 

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 10:17 AM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Seems reasonable.  I can't think of anything other language called shell but SH is also the place where Napoleon was exiled.
> 
> Regards,

---

From: Sandy Ginoza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:39:18 -0700

And - THANKS for your quick replies !

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 10:38 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[email-masked]> wrote:
>