[Tools-discuss] Re: Enhancements to HTMLized versions of RFCs and drafts
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Tools-discuss] Re: Enhancements to HTMLized versions of RFCs and drafts



Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
 
> I've added some new features to the HTMLized versions of RFCs and drafts

Great.

> I've added an indication of the standards level of an RFC at the top of
> the HTMLized version; it will now say "DRAFT STANDARD", "PROPOSED 
> STANDARD" or "STANDARD" according to what's indicated in the latest 
> rfc-index from rfc-editor.org.

Test, RFC 821 (STD 10) doesn't say STANDARD.  For 1123 (STD 3) it works.

> I've added a link to a Google search for drafts containing the exact
> title, so that it is  easier to find the referenced draft.

That doesn't work, you have spaces in the URLs, you need %20.  Example:

.../search?sitesearch=tools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2F&q=inurl:draft-+"COPS Over CMS"

Probably you want the following, not limited to tools.ietf.org/html/,
and using the "IETF search" feature as on the main www.IETF.org page:

http://www.google.com/u/ietf?q=inurl:draft-+"COPS%20Over%20CMS";

If you're sure that you want to limit it to tools.ietf.org/html/ it's...

http://www.google.com/u/ietf?q=inurl:tools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-+"COPS%20Over%20CMS

...but that doesn't find anything at the moment, probably there's no
such draft, or googlebot has not yet found it.

The .../u/ietf?q=... part returns search results without Ads, compare
https://services.google.com/pss_faq.html#11

The folks who customized the IETF search "look and feel" forgot to add
the IETF logo.  That's sad if it's the same idea as for the old free
site search, because it might offer a back link to www.ietf.org, like
my "logo" on http://purl.net/xyzzy/-AWFID/99%2520inches%2520in%2520rods

Frank



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




Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.