Re: [Xml-sg-cmt] <contact> Fwd: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 9147 <draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-43.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Ack - thanks!


> On Jan 7, 2022, at 2:46 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm still with you, use the normal formatting.  If one of the renderings doesn't happen to match a TXT RFC from several years ago, so be it.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
>> Just checking in on this, as we should reply to ekr regarding his request.  I'm inclined to pushback on this, but I’d like to make sure we agree as we will mention that we discussed the request with this group.
>> 
>> FYI: RFC 7322 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-4.11> includes the following which indicates that the format of the Contributors should match the Authors’ Addresses section:
>> 
>>  The Contributors section may include brief statements about the
>>  nature of particular contributions ("Sam contributed Section 3"), and
>>  it may also include affiliations of listed contributors.  At the
>>  discretion of the author(s), contact addresses may also be included
>>  in the Contributors section, for those contributors whose knowledge
>>  makes them useful future contacts for information about the RFC.  The
>>  format of any contact information should be similar to the format of
>>  information in the Author's Address section.
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t think ekr will like the indentation, but another option that avoids using <artwork> is to use <ul>.  You can see the example here (only the first entry has been updated):
>> 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/sandy9147.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/sandy9147.html#name-contributors
>> 
>> I prefer the existing structure in RFC 9147 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9147.txt> because it seem like more correct and common tagging, but I’m open.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Sandy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 5, 2022, at 10:22 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 5, 2022, at 9:20 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>>>> Just curious: why does the extra space appear in the first place?
>>>>>> It's just a wart of the way the XML renders into text.  It looks fine in the HTML and PDF.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If it really matters to an author, can this be adjusted by hand before publication?
>>>> 
>>>> Only by a hack like <artwork>, so no.
>>> 
>>> I would strongly prefer not to do any updates to the XML or output files after the prep tool has been run.  It would make it rerendering more difficult.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Remember that the txt is a non-canonical rendering of the XML.  If people desperately want less whitespace in the TXT rendering, I suppose we could open a ticket and ask for the rendering to squish the whitespace.  Or we could ask people to visit the 21st century and take a look at the HTML version.
>>>> 
>>>> I really do not have any interest in trying to replicate the formatting of decade old txt documents.
>>> 
>>> I don’t think a change is needed because this is the only complaint we’ve received about the spacing (that I am aware of).
>>> If this issue is wider and change is needed, I lean toward removing the space in the contributors and authors sections so it’s more consistent with the HTML and PDF.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sandy
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Xml-sg-cmt mailing list
>>> Xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-sg-cmt
>> 
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> 
> -- 
> Xml-sg-cmt mailing list
> Xml-sg-cmt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-sg-cmt