Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [rfc-i] RFC 8661 in AUTH48, was: [v3] Please help review v3 files

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 18.09.2019 22:09, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> ...
>>
>> FWIW, RFC 8661 (in AUTH48) has that problem.
>>
>> Would be good to resolve it in some way before publication.
>
> HI Julian, et al.,
>
> The RFC Editor discussed this internally; we recognize it as a problem for more than just RFC-to-be 8661. That said, for now we’re going to use a work around, as the implementing of a new way of handling the role of “contributor” is outside the existing scope of work.

Well, the issue has been known for several years now, so declaring it
out-of-scope is a bit weird. Note that this is a regression from v2,
where line breaks could be forced inside regular text, so at least no
abuse of <artwork> was needed.

> The plan for now is touse <artwork> element. Yes, it will look differently than Authors' Addresses in the HTML and PDF outputs. It is not ideal.
>
> The future solution (TBD) may have us creating the role “contributor” and having that signal specific rendering details within the Contributor section.

As discussed in the ticket
(<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/81>),
adding a new role will not work, as:

- existing tools will treat contributors as authors, which they are not
- it does not address the RFC style guide suggestion to allow mixing
prose with contact information.

> This isn’t a showstopper for going live with v3.
>
> -Heather

Best regards, Julian