Re: [Tools-discuss] RFCmarkup v1.28

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
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss