Spec comparison of RFC XML samples by TXT output

[opoudjis]

bundle exec bin/asciidoctor-rfc2 spec/examples/davies-template-bare-06.adoc --trace; \
  xml2rfc spec/examples/davies-template-bare-06.xml -o new.txt; \
  xml2rfc spec/examples/davies-template-bare-06.xml.orig -o old.txt; \
  diff old.txt new.txt

[opoudjis]

Added first of many files to rspec; comparing only txt output for now.

[opoudjis]

There are spacing inconsistencies in the markdown files, but they are minor.

[opoudjis]

I introduced open block formatting to deal with the complex nested lists in RFC7511.

Major inconsistency with MMark output is that BCP14 output in MMark is just capitalised, whereas in current gem it is capitalised + strong: SHOULD vs *SHOULD*. Should I drop the boldfacing?

[ronaldtse]

I think we should do both boldface and capitalize :wink:

[opoudjis]

No problem. The MMark output in rspec is going to complain unnecessarily, since the MMark XML output does not do this, but better to make the discrepancy obvious.

[opoudjis]

... on second thought, I'm going to change the *BCP14* to BCP14 within the spec, for the purposes of comparison of the MMark outputs.

[ronaldtse]

Got it!

[opoudjis]

I am working on mitigating the spacing issues.

[opoudjis]

Mitigated as much as I can.

[ronaldtse]

Thank you @opoudjis . We just need to keep in mind that "mmark" is not technically the "authoritative" approach, but sticking to what it does is a good idea.

[opoudjis]

And indeed, there's a couple of areas where I've improved on MMark—notably in forcing use of the relref convention for addressing part of a reference. (It's v3, but I use it as a template for v2 as well.)

[ronaldtse]

@opoudjis could you help document those improvements so we all know what they are! 👍