IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: automated id submission tool munging the abstract?

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136473A6A61 for <wgchairs@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:34:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sOvYKFKh1Sdb for <wgchairs@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4C728C0EB for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:34:36 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1264005270!20725980!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
Received: (qmail 11215 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2010 16:34:31 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-9.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 20 Jan 2010 16:34:31 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0KGYcbk015175 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:38 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0KGYXIi015092 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:34 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0KGYQXr022946 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:26 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0KGYI49022595 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:18 -0500
Received: from [135.70.35.39] (vpn-135-70-35-39.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.35.39]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20100120163417gw100m6bufe> (Authid: tony); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:34:18 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.35.39]
Message-ID: <4B573088.906@att.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:16 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: automated id submission tool munging the abstract?
References: <4B571EFB.3070907@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001201620590.26930@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <4B572374.2020004@att.com> <1028365c1001200750u5feec976o6cfb378223208295@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1028365c1001200750u5feec976o6cfb378223208295@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:34:37 -0000

Not at all. But if one is present, then it can be used.

I've seen more problems with the heuristics than just this one example. 
When a source file is present that uses semantic markup, then we should 
be able to use it to extract exact text.

If the nroff source files used more semantic-oriented markup, then they 
could be used as well. Unfortunately, the nroff source I've written and 
seen tends to be just as opaque semantically as the text output.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Donald Eastlake wrote:
> So, are we now required to use the xml tools even though there has been 
> no announcement to that effect?
> 
> I continue to use nroff for all my draft and have always had this 
> problem because the submission tools has always, as far as I know, 
> failed to have the seeming obvious heuristic of being able to detect the 
> end of abstract by some number (2, 3, 4?) of blank lines.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com 
> <mailto:tony@att.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Which leads to the question as to why the xml isn't being consulted
>     to extract the abstract, instead of using heuristics on the text
>     version?
> 
>            Tony Hansen
>            tony@att.com <mailto:tony@att.com>
> 
> 
>     Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> 
>         Hi Eliot
> 
>         I run into the same issue recently and I was choosing to correct
>         this leading to manual submission. The reason for this problem
>         lies in the new ordering of the I-D sections (the Abstract
>         jumped over the boilerplate text).
> 
>         cheers,
>          Bernie
> 
>         On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
>             Hi everyone,
> 
>             I've submitted two drafts recently, and in both cases, the
>             submission
>             tool runs over the end of the abstract and into Status of
>             this memo.  Is
>             that intentional?  The two drafts in question are
>             draft-lear-lisp-nerd
>             and draft-lear-ietf-sasl-openid.  This punts the thing to a
>             manual
>             submission.
> 
>             Eliot
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email