On 2020-05-04, at 14:31, John Bradley <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
