[rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
ietf at augustcellars.com
Wed Jan 16 17:03:21 PST 2019
One of the worries about this is that going forward we will not have an "htmlized" version of the document as the document will be HTML. This might require a change to XML2RFC to locate this type of information and emit it as part of the output.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of Brian E
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:28 PM
> To: Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov at aegee.org>; Heather Flanagan
> <rse at rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the
> RFC Production Center and Publisher
> Hi Дилян,
> (Cc: trimmed)
> The RFC (and specifically the .txt file today) is the archival form of the
> document, so cannot be changed by definition.
> However, I think that having an *annotated* version of the RFC, with
> approved errata incorporated somehow, would be interesting. But that
> needs real work; I don't think it can be automated. So I wonder whether it is
> worth the cost.
> Also, for this to work as intended, obsoleted RFCs would have an annotated
> version which says *only* "Obsoleted by RFCxxxx", and RFCs updated by
> another RFC would need extensive annotation.
> So on the whole I think the header on the HTMLized versions is the most
> practical approach. Look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460
> which shows all these feature, including a link to the errata.
> Brian Carpenter
> On 2019-01-17 07:49, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> > Hello,
> >> What one thing would make the editing process easier or more
> >> effective? [Free form text]
> > Post publication editing:
> > I joined this mailing list proposing integrating the validated errata
> > in the RFCs, without necessary creating a separate RFC with distinct
> number for the update.
> > The idea is that readers can just pick a document (RFC), read it and
> > don’t struggle with fixed misconsistencies in the document, already
> clarified in the errata.
> > Regards
> > Дилян
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest