Re: Alternative formats for IDs

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Thursday, January 12, 2006 08:27:44 PM -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin" 
<smb at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

> In message <A9062431F4994D02CD846987 at sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>, Jeffrey
> Hutzelman  writes:
> >
>
> > It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have
> > two  stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of
> > copy-editing, and  then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after
> > the final conversion.
> That assumes that the xml->nroff conversion is always error-free.  I
> think that that's an overassumption.

I don't think it makes that assumption.  It assumes that the conversion
is usually error-free with respect to content, and thus that the vast
majority of problems will be discovered in the first phase, when any
corrections can be incorporated into XML that will then hopefully be 
available when the time comes to work on the next protocol version.

Of course, any changes introduced in the XML->nroff conversion would have 
to be corrected, which is why the authors would still need to sign off
on the final published text.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf