IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 25 May 2022 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C70FC3A3D7B for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653439060; bh=vTP5q/AdV+80Tv4zkGoroJmXBzMMIsGHQRqQJau8Rw8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=tcYnrfvkyjrTd4qP+pktoDZ63DUpHThn9ksZNsEwRkuZ5ZJKqpeJe12qay7xUs7bQ RypaVniBU1HgqFXvC45AGUxaeRiipGXVuPSf3IroDFENjydpOqQfQN5Q1sNRdIzt0b OXOaRuxVvX9zzNXc/seTUkblitizatxSkyC44p0Q=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Tue May 24 17:37:40 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C6AC3A3D69; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1653439060; bh=vTP5q/AdV+80Tv4zkGoroJmXBzMMIsGHQRqQJau8Rw8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=tcYnrfvkyjrTd4qP+pktoDZ63DUpHThn9ksZNsEwRkuZ5ZJKqpeJe12qay7xUs7bQ RypaVniBU1HgqFXvC45AGUxaeRiipGXVuPSf3IroDFENjydpOqQfQN5Q1sNRdIzt0b OXOaRuxVvX9zzNXc/seTUkblitizatxSkyC44p0Q=
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686EBC3A3D6A for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=N+ckYMAN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=U2ozU478
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SDr6ScjwnL9c for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA6BC3A3D66 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 41880 invoked from network); 25 May 2022 00:37:31 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; s=a396.628d7a4b.k2205; bh=eFNywkKZlDe37E2TW6CMnfpu9ti6GgusP9eWtj8Lbu0=; b=N+ckYMANVXU3XLK8nqlLhX0Mk0cTs/g9fqG8Ih2A2qEj+yVvFSAl3GisNcri5ACiv207Gy0kpa/JOKgsReMA0rkfSpHE8Yxz9Y1Vzo+xtMoeGXvMT1BRPBzc07x5eliRXB9WCxcTJx9KlciePjtrZZmd5uMMrU9EGB9PRQo/qKxUgwv5eldQs9PIDjk+vy5n0l/+0y/fb4r9n/eS9nFqFIjL4lZow8EasCca1REmTmgdUY/N+kLWF81BWZPR8iOQmYCwKqDy22/yZYdZ9kvwhZGH6Iqm8T86Gi0+AlEFbItHhBc/fIMxATWk1LCTil8cpLvshj/RosmKM02etbpXFQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; s=a396.628d7a4b.k2205; bh=eFNywkKZlDe37E2TW6CMnfpu9ti6GgusP9eWtj8Lbu0=; b=U2ozU4787FED7soDDJxM+vAcozIy1/CB+C4hr0mszUKbneEQqnlR/EozElX2MkWPQgqHwV206Z0PS5gX+tGtW2Tkw62HqykTqs87puRLzGnFFM0przmBSmOD6nbEW8XXjcTElnqrbG5swGfiq8n4SiAt1TEMALT+gkMq6CSpNHQ2I4lZH7+DdTaYSHOCjb/6I85b1ywBmz5KF8lKmsfSTn5ExHy2xBp7CUgNgAtyt32ki9b56KiDJysGpLocHM5toXxvmDFTxJiq++bGL2L/zzhH1TGShp9m5V6aADVwWWas0WnpD7mb19Vax5rDkpKpqcdJAwoZ9S1nNeFNJdJ5pA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 25 May 2022 00:37:31 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9C0AE4199600; Tue, 24 May 2022 20:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7E041995DF for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 24 May 2022 20:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 20:37:29 -0400
Message-ID: <8297ac0d-56dd-1ec7-9baf-d0cd52c0076b@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/_Ikv-O0E2jLin2qPQrfx58qgErw>
Subject: [rfc-i] Meta decorations in generated HTML
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

We have two xml2rfc tickets asking to add more meta tags in the rendered 
HTML of RFCs.

Ticket 757 is mine https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/757

It asks for the meta tags that Google Scholar uses. I know these are the 
right tags because I added them to the HTML-ized versions of older RFCs 
which are now at long last showing up in Google Scholar.

Tickets 776 and 777 are from Mark Nottingham 
https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/777

It asks for Open Graph metadata (see https://ogp.me/) which makes links 
display nicely on Facebook, Twitter, some Wordpress sites, and probably 
other places.  The should work also for the HTML rendered versions of 
I-D's.

Are there other meta tags that people would find useful?  Do we agree that 
we want the OG tags?  We already agreed on the Google Scholar tags about a 
decade ago but it took a while to get around to it.

If we like the OG tags, should I arrange to add them to the HTMLized 
versions of pre-XML RFCs?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email