[Tools-discuss] Re: RFCmarkup v1.28

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> please go to http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4321 etc.,

The RFC 4321 output is fine.  When I ask for a "generic" draft
(no number, no extension) like draft-ietf-usefor-useage I get
draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01 without extension, and the added
(thanks) text link also goes to draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.

If that's working as designed it's okay, but maybe you wanted
to create a link to draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt (?)

Checking this document:  In its section 1.2 it has a reference
of the style [USEFOR] at the begin of a paragraph, you missed
that.  You caught other [USEFOR] etc. within paragraphs.

At the moment I get an "document contains no data" error for a
broken link like draft-ietf-usefor-article-format - you created
the link based on draft-ietf-usefor-article-format-*.txt, this
is old stuff, you don't have it in your database.

Checking what's going on, if I try the ID URL for this it's an
ordinary non-empty 404.  My browser didn't get the fine point of
the 303 for its GET HTTP/1.0 with the HTML URL.

Trying RFC 1945:  No 303 in HTTP/1.0.  And also no link to the
"obsoleted by", pushing 303 issue, now checking "obsoleted by":

The RFC link (first link before ID and TXT) is rather huge for
modem users... 2616 was the number I'm looking for, not 2617,
off by one.

Looking at 2616, it has "Obsoletes: 2068" without link.  Please
add links for "Obsoletes: nnnn".  Okay, now I see why 1945 has
no "obsoleted by", they didn't say "obsoletes 1945" in 2068.

Maybe that convention was invented later, or they forgot it.
Pop 2616 and 303 issue:  "See other" is about POST vs. GET, so
why do you need this ?

| Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303
| status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern,
| the 302 status code may be used instead, since most user
| agents react to a 302 response as described here for 303.

It's not consistent, I get the 303 only for some forms of an
URL,  And only until you have it in your cache apparently (?)

I just tested rfc1036:  two "document contains no data" for the
303, third attempt worked, I got 1036.  Maybe just delay your
answer until you know what it's going to be, 200 or 404.

If I try html/1032 (not html/rfc1032) it works without the 303.
Testing several 103x, always the same behaviour, html/103x gets
it at once, html/rfc103x runs into the 303 trap.  Later both
work.

Oops, the output "updated by" for 1035 is ugly, numerous links
all in one long line.  With "errata" at the far right end.  The
"updated by" meta data before the begin of the original text is
not forced to use monospaced, you can format it in any way you
like.  Or fold it after 78 columns if you want it to be part of
the following monospaced text of the original document (?)

> if the browser has javascript, I run a snippet which adds the
> <h?/> tags, on the theory that most browsers with java-script
> turned on will also have css which preserves the look-and
> feel of the result

Makes sense.  If I turn JavaScript 1.1 on with my old browser
I'm not at all surprised if nothing works, therefore I almost
never try this.

Bye, Frank



_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss