Re: [Tools-discuss] RFCmarkup v1.28

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

IE now looks fine - printing on both Firefox and IE looks good. BTW I 
realized that the 75% on IE is not how it scales the printing but is a 
way of zooming the on screen display of the preview. Doh!

The product of a paranoid's breakfast:

1. http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3410 : The second item (2.2) that 
claims to be on page 4 in the ToC doesn't get a link (something to do 
with longish title and only one period in the leader?)

2. 
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aoun-middlebox-token-authentication-00: 
The section headers are now <h2> but the title is still body text. This 
one has 'Expires on'

3. http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-07: (no 
'Expires:' at all) - how about not looking for the title etc until after 
the second group of totally blank lines (or the first group that isn't 
at the start of the document)?

4. http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aoun-mgcp-nat-package-02: This 
is a very badly formatted draft.. you fixed the link in the ToC problem 
but it has the same problem as #2 above and thereafter the markup of 
section headers is semi-random. Sections 1, 2 and 3 miss out; the first 
three non-empty body text lines on p3 become a header.  Sections 3.x are 
found but not s4 onwards.  s4.x you would have difficulty with as they 
are indented. Horrible! I think I owe you a beer if you can canonicalize 
this one!

5. 
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-07#section-3.3:  
Another horrid problem: This section contains a reference of the form 
[IPv6, Section 4.5].  The result is that the IPv6 reference is not 
turned into a link and Section 4.5 is turned into an internal link.


Just joking...
It doesn't deal with RFC280 or RFC331 too well! I was looking to see if 
having 'draft' in the title confused the script (it didn't).  RFC1038 
exercises the upper reaches of the header level algorithm, and 
(slightly) surprisingly the document map isn't confused!

/Elwyn
Bug finder general

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Ok, so I think I've fixed most of the remaining things in v1.29:
>
> on 2006-07-26 22:27 Elwyn Davies said the following:
>
> [...]
>>>> This looks generally good in Firefox, but the fount size for <h1> 
>>>> in IE
>>>> (v6.0, XP SP2) is very much too large.and is not the same as the body
>>>> test for all the other headers (~50% bigger for <h2> and ~25% bigger
>>>> for <h3>).
>>>>
>>> Hmm!! That should not happen, given that IE 6.0 understands css.
>>> I've made a change in the css, could you check this out again?
>>>
>> This seems to be fixed (even if I can't get rfc4321 to refresh on IE) -
>> rfc4320 is fine now and rfc4321 looks good on Firefox.
>
> Ok, good. I've actually done one more tweak to the CSS. Let me know
> if there is any further problem on IE with the headers not having the
> same font-size as the rest of the text.
>
> [...]
>> What about 3 line titles? rfc4319 ... sorry!
>
> Ouch! Ok, should be fixed now.
>
>>>> - This draft doesn't get its headers put into <h*> at all:
>>>> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aoun-middlebox-token-authentication-00
>>>> - (an unpleasant corner case)
>>>>
>
> Ok, this should also work now.
>
> [...]
>>>> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aoun-mgcp-nat-package-02 has a
>>>> reference to a draft file in a section title (s9) and the algorithm
>>>> doesn't quite work on the table of contents (it incorporates the 
>>>> leader
>>>> and the page number into the hyperlink).. Need a pattern that allows
>>>> only a single non-trailing period perhaps?
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>>>> (all this was looking for a draft or RFC with a very long section 
>>>> title
>>>> that spills onto two lines - finally found one...)
>>>> - s2.8 of
>>>> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-05 
>>>> -
>>>> the second line of the title isn't in the <h3>
>>>>
>>> Right. I think I'm going to give up on this one - I think drafts that
>>> lack a blank line between section title and section text may be just as
>>> likely as having a very long section title...
>>>
>> Yes... I wouldn't complain too hard. Section titles that long are just
>> wrong (he said, as editor of the draft in question :-))
>
> Aha ,;-)
>
> Well, better shorten the line if you want the markup to look good ;-)
>
>>>> - A badly formed draft (missing the Expires: on the third line of the
>>>> header) produces some unexpected results:
>>>> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-07. BTW 
>>>> idnits
>>>> does not complain about this.
>>>>
>>> Bah. Rfcmarkup takes the "11" in "11 July 2005" to be a section number.
>>> ... And how the blip should it know that this isn't a section number?...
>>>
>> Cos it comes before the title ;-) .. Maybe we just ignore this one, fix
>> idnits and wrk with decent id's.
>
> Since rfcmarkup doesn't try to parse the document, but applies regular
> expressions to do its stuff, 'before the title' is a bit hard to handle.
> I'm giving up on this, for the time being.
>
> [...]
>> This looks better now.
>> I was on A4. I get 100% on Firefox but still nominally 75% on IE - but
>> the text is bigger and looks ok (strange).
>
> Ok. Sounds reasonably good.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henrik

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss