Re: [jose] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (6118)

On 2020-05-04, at 14:31, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 
> It may be possible to improve the tools, however TEXT to HTML has been a
> issue for a long time.

Yes.  And the SMOP below solves that problem nicely.

> The exesting TEXT RFC 7515 won't change.  

It doesn’t need to (as long as it is read by a human).
The issue is that the htmlizer’s heuristics only have limited AI.

> Perhaps the HTML rendering
> will imporove, but our best bet is still the impovement in the nomative
> version to be something other than TEXT.

Which is already the case with the RFCXMLv3 transition.

> In any event nothing that a eratta to RFC7515 can help with.

No, but the report is still useful as the information in it could go into the database the SMOP uses.
I just picked this specific report for responding as it is number N+1 of the same kind, where N is the number where I’m finally losing the patience needed to ignore the problem.

Grüße, Carsten

> 
> John B.
> 
> On 5/4/2020 2:00 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> [On the usual problem with htmlizing links to other RFCs:]
>> 
>> On 2020-05-04, at 02:30, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>>> One day this will be fixed for new RFC but not for existing ones. 
>> Why not?
>> 
>> It would be a SMOP(*) to invest the htmlizer with knowledge about misdirected links that were discovered in existing RFCs.  Each of these errata reports (and all the existing rejected ones) would inform this.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> (*) SMOP: Small matter of programming.
>> Usually said by people who don’t want to do the work themselves.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> jose@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose