[Errata-design] errata revamp: examples of corrected html files

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

I spent a little time putting these files together to see if we can understand what would be highlighted and what would be incorporated into a corrected HTML file.  Please take a look at these files.  I thought this might help us understand whether we’re on the right path. Imho, we’re not, as it seems like we’re highlighting editorial errata fixes and downplaying technical errata reports.  RFC 6350 is a particularly good example, as there are a number of tech reports that need to be vetted.  

Notes: 
- I understand that the files will not look exactly like this, but I imagine it would be something like this (just using a current set of existing tools).
- There are verified editorial errata that I don’t think we would verify without seeking external guidance (i.e., could be reclassified as technical and be moved into the modding system).


http://www.rfc-editor.org/test/rfc2119-test-diff.html
verified tech and editorial errata

http://www.rfc-editor.org/test/rfc2026-test-diff.html
verified tech and editorial errata

http://www.rfc-editor.org/test/rfc2018-test-diff.html
verified tech errata only
the diff file is blank; there is only a link to the “Technical Errata” at the top of the file

http://www.rfc-editor.org/test/rfc6350-test-diff.html
- incorporated verified editorial errata
- it links to tech errata of any status (verified, reported, held, etc.)

These were marked as editorial/verified, but I don’t think we’d necessarily be able to verify these:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2964
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3000
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3368
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4246

What do you think? 

Thanks,
Sandy