Re: [xml2rfc-dev] Please help review v3 files

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

I only looked at the first example.

The table of contents overlay is not great for the reasons Carsten cited.  The spacing between items there is strange.

The references are similarly strangely formatted.  I think that is just the choice of really large anchor names [I-D.ietf-blablabla] rather than using shorter symbolic names though.

I don't like the choice of font, but I concede that this is subjective.

The use of small caps for the "(EDITOR)" designation is jarring.

The weight of the paragraph anchors is enough that it is very distracting.

Line lengths are too long.  https://typographyforlawyers.com/line-length.html

There are too many different font styles in use, particularly in the front matter.  The guidance we got from a professional designer is that you need to reduce the number of variations and that each change should only alter one thing (size, italic, bold, font, etc...)

There are also a bunch of things that are likely the result of problems in the source document.

The contributors section seems to be badly formatted in HTML.

The formatting of the insets in Section 4.2.1 is odd.

The indentation in Section 4.3 is odd.

Authors have errant commas.

The ordering of the trailing sections is a little hard to understand.  There are contributors, then references, then authors.

In comparison, https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html has none of these problems.  It also (subjectively) looks much nicer.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, at 02:19, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As you know, the transition to XMLv3 is quickly approaching.  As part 
> of our preparation, the RPC is  converting some XMLv2 files to XMLv3.  
> We’re hoping some of you will take the time to review the files and 
> provide feedback regarding whether the updates are as expected and the 
> XMLv3 files are considered “good” v3 files.  
> 
> A couple of notes:
> - we focused on format only; we did not make editorial updates. 
> - the diff files compare the initial v2v3 output with the files we edited.
> 
> Please review the following files:
> 
> 1) draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11.txt
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11-MS.v2v3.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11-MS.v2v3.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11-MS.v2v3.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11-MS.v2v3.xml
> 
> rfc-xmldiff:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11-MS.v2v3-xmldiff.html
> 
> htmlwdiff:
> file:///Volumes/rfcpa/inc-work/v3test/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11-MS.v2v3-htmlwdiff.html
> 
> 
> 2) draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07.txt
> 
> Please pay particular attention to lists and the use of <aside>.  We 
> experimented with list styles and used <aside> for notes.  Using 
> <aside> in this way required some changes because <aside> can’t be used 
> within lists.  
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07-SG.v2v3.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07-SG.v2v3.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07-SG.v2v3.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07-SG.v2v3.xml
> 
> rfc-xmldiff:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07-SG.orignal.v2v3-xmldiff.html
> 
> htmlwdiff:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07-SG.orignal.v2v3-htmlwdiff.html
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> Sandy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev
>