Re: [rfc-i] RFC9115 errata html rendering

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 22, 2024, at 2:30 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2/22/24 3:51 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I arrived to read RFC9115 after following the reference newly published 9535.
>> At https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9115 I see the option to read the HTML
>> with errata applied at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc9115.html
>> 
>> But, it's not really the HTML version.  There are no internal links, no
>> right-hand table of contents, etc.  It's a poorly HTML-ized txt output.
>> 
>> I'm wondering what's going on here.  I don't mind if the errata version is
>> the text version, but it seems to be advertised as the HTML version.
> 
> It is using features of html to render the applied and annotated diff to the text version - it is closer to htmlized than the 799* html.
> 
> The inline-errata tool is something that Adam Roach originally put together as a proof-of-concept. It's been useful to continue to use it in the limited scope that it can be used, but it is not attempting to make "patched' versions of all the output formats.

To add more info, Jim Schaad created rfc-errata <https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc-errata> after Adam prototyped it.  rfc-errata is used by the RPC to generate the files listed as "HTML with inline errata" on the info page. For a given RFC, the file exists only if verified errata exist.
The current input is a text file. As far as potential updates -- 
- for lower than RFC 8650, it would be nice if the input were the HTML output of rfc2html.
- for RFC 8650 and beyond, it would be nice if the input were the HTML output of xml2rfc.

Alice Russo
RFC Production Center