Re: [Tools-discuss] RFCmarkup v1.28

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Elwyn,

Thanks for more feedback;

on 2006-07-27 12:05 Elwyn Davies said the following:
> 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?)

Right. Won't fix.

> 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'

Mmm.  Right.  Won't fix now (not trivial), but maybe later.

> 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)?

Can you put that in a regexp ;-) ?

The boldfaced 11 July is taken to be a section - I tried to require the
section numbers to contain a period, but had to revert that as too many
document have major section numbers without a period.

Currently the title is the first group of lines which are preceded by
a line which begins with "Category:" or ends in a year, then a blank
line.  I'll look at changing that to the pattern you suggest, for the
next version.

> 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!

Actually, it seems you're looking at an old cached copy - after refreshing
here, this one looks pretty good too me, on all 3 servers.

> 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.

Ah. I see.  Yes, this is one of several variations of combination of
references and section numbers.  There are others I know of which I don't
handle.  I can start going through them, but don't expect full coverage
any time soon - the reason I haven't even started on these are that there
are a lot of variation...

> 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).

Heh.  I think I'll just accept failure on these two...

>  RFC1038 
> exercises the upper reaches of the header level algorithm, and 
> (slightly) surprisingly the document map isn't confused!

I'm setting the level to 6 even if it's above 6, which it is here
(document title + 6 levels of sections.)  This document was the
original reason why I added css styles for h7, h8, h9 -- the first time
I looked at this one, the section headers were in a tiny tiny font.
(It seems Firefox tries to handle at least <h7/>, but I've seen reports
that other browsers even crash on <h7/> or larger, so I'll be a good boy
and draw the line at <h6/>).


Regards,

	Henrik


> /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