IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Broken relative links to I-Ds in RFCs

Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Tue, 30 May 2023 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006DEC14CE44 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 MHqeoW_qliTW for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (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 4A865C151B25 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FCD424CD39; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtQ8DUvDCb_5; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B555E424CD06; Tue, 30 May 2023 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fcfaf53f-07f1-c67c-792d-b2d502cb668b@amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 13:00:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <CABcZeBPn4+UyTyx6ETSnJ=twYosN1N5tmFjQOaGS5ohMMGF9Rw@mail.gmail.com> <949aa033-47a7-9914-e8d9-2a4bd45909c5@gmail.com> <0410A08E-140D-43BD-9870-54BF03BB63D6@eggert.org>
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <0410A08E-140D-43BD-9870-54BF03BB63D6@eggert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/LNUQm3dJBBaBNywJMUhhFxdqGrI>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Broken relative links to I-Ds in RFCs
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:00:59 -0000

Hi all,

On 5/30/23 1:35 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On May 28, 2023, at 05:01, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oops, it looks as if the .html files at rfc-editor are exact copies of the htmlized versions at datatracker.ietf.org
> they aren't, or at least not always.
>
> For documents where it doesn't have xml2rfc-generated HTML available (like RFC8555), the datatracker uses the latest version of https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc2html to generate HTML to render from the plaintext version. As part of that, it sets the "path" argument for rfc2html.markup so links work relative to the datatracker document tree.
>
> The RPC - AFAIK - uses whatever version of rfc2html is current at the time an RFC is published to generate HTML, and mostly never recreates the HTML. It also looks like they don't set the "path" argument correctly or at all, because "." is the default: https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfc2html/blob/e02f36d34cdd7a07f7bf43972f143e0cec067737/rfc2html.py#L20
[JM] The RPC uses rfc2html to create the HTML for RFCs numbered less 
than 8649, and we are looking into this issue.

Thanks!
Jean

>
> Lars
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email