Re: [Tools-discuss] [jose] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7515 (6118)

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten -

How is the SMOP you are envisioning different from the inline-errata 
tooling?

See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc6016.html or 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc8400.html for small 
examples.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc3261.html#btn_1051 and 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc3261.html#btn_1470 show 
placers where the errata could be algorithmically applied directly to 
the text.

RjS


On 5/4/20 9:53 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-05-04, at 14:31, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> It may be possible to improve the tools, however TEXT to HTML has been a
>> issue for a long time.
> Yes.  And the SMOP below solves that problem nicely.
>
>> The exesting TEXT RFC 7515 won't change.
> It doesn’t need to (as long as it is read by a human).
> The issue is that the htmlizer’s heuristics only have limited AI.
>
>> Perhaps the HTML rendering
>> will imporove, but our best bet is still the impovement in the nomative
>> version to be something other than TEXT.
> Which is already the case with the RFCXMLv3 transition.
>
>> In any event nothing that a eratta to RFC7515 can help with.
> No, but the report is still useful as the information in it could go into the database the SMOP uses.
> I just picked this specific report for responding as it is number N+1 of the same kind, where N is the number where I’m finally losing the patience needed to ignore the problem.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>> John B.
>>
>> On 5/4/2020 2:00 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> [On the usual problem with htmlizing links to other RFCs:]
>>>
>>> On 2020-05-04, at 02:30, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> One day this will be fixed for new RFC but not for existing ones.
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> It would be a SMOP(*) to invest the htmlizer with knowledge about misdirected links that were discovered in existing RFCs.  Each of these errata reports (and all the existing rejected ones) would inform this.
>>>
>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>
>>> (*) SMOP: Small matter of programming.
>>> Usually said by people who don’t want to do the work themselves.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jose mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [e-mail]
>
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [e-mail]