Re: [auth48] Final question - AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9277 <draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-12> for your review

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

The <artwork workaround works for me. 
The <contact approach is working around an inappropriate enforcement in xml2rfc of a senseless rule — as you can see, the same beyond-ASCII character is now used, just in a slightly more stilted form.
Anyway, for expediency, let’s go with <artwork. 

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 31. Aug 2022, at 01:49, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carsten, Michael, 
> 
> Actually, we see that the XML uses <contact> as follows:
> 
>   Note that no tag numbers are assigned for Content-Format numbers in                   
>   the range 65025 <contact fullname="≤"/> ct <contact fullname="≤"/> 65535.
> 
> This is inappropriate use of the <contact> element.  I understand it’s not ideal, but may we either switch this to <artwork> or go with ASCII only? 
> 
> Example of artwork: 
> 
>   Note that no tag numbers are assigned for Content-Format numbers in
>   the following range:
> 
>   <artwork>65025 ≤ ct ≤ 65535</artwork>
> 
> You can see the output here: 
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/sandy.html#appendix-B
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/sandy.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/sandy.pdf
> 
> 
> Otherwise, perhaps we use ASCII only (i.e., 65025 <= ct <= 65535) until non-ASCII characters can be used more liberally. 
> 
> 
> Any other ideas? 
> 
> Thanks,
> Sandy 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2022, at 3:40 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Carsten,
>> 
>> Thanks for the nudge — the document has been updated and is now ready for publication.  Apologies for the delay!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/sg
>> 
>>>> On Aug 30, 2022, at 7:54 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2022-08-19, at 22:22, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> encoded.  For instance, an Android APK (as used to transfer and store
>>>> an application) may be identified as a ZIP file.  Additionally, both
>>>> NEW:
>>>> encoded.  For instance, an Android Package Kit APK (as used to transfer and store
>>>> an application) may be identified as a ZIP file.  Additionally, both
>>> 
>>> Is this something the RFC editor wants to pick up?
>>> It seems to me we are done here after this change.
>>> 
>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>> 
>> 
>