[rfc-i] Soliciting feedback: starting a satisfaction survey for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 20:41:08 PST 2019
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.
>> -----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:
>>>> 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.
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest