[rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 06:37:58 PST 2019


I agree with Brian, and this change also gives us an opportunity to improve
the top banner, for example making the phrase "Errata Exist" a live link
rather than using a separate link to reach the errata page.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:41 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-01-17 14:03, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I can't see why we couldn't prepend an HTML banner to the HTML RFC, to
> convey the same information. Just a small matter of tools work.
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of
> Brian E
> >> Carpenter
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>    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
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190117/7ef7845a/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list