W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: RFC 2616, partitioned

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:22:09 +1000
Message-Id: <987E775D-B27C-4DB6-A8B6-00CB7245BA9C@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

Well, rfcdiff of draft-lafon-00 to p1-messaging gives this:
   <http://www.mnot.net/test/p1-messaging-from-draft-lafon- 
rfc2616bis-00.diff.html>
...which is pretty good at showing one change.

It would be nice to show them all side-by-side, but I don't see any  
easy way to do that.





On 18/10/2007, at 4:09 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Oct 17, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Without having more than skimmed it, I like the feel so far.
>>
>> Is there any way to get some sort of diff from 2616 to the current  
>> text? Having that was critical for Julian's draft IMO.
>
> That was the idea, but it did not come out as well as I wanted:
>
> http://labs.apache.org/webarch/http/draft-fielding-http/diffs.html
>
> Each part started as rfc2616.xml, so if you follow the changelog
> with subversion you can see what content is changed.  What you can't
> see is where each deleted section ended up in a different partition,
> unless you go back to the RFC outline and jump from there.
>
> http://labs.apache.org/webarch/http/draft-fielding-http/ 
> outline2616.html
>
> I considered using the ins/del marks for changes, but that would
> become unreadable very fast and my focus is on readability (one
> of the main reasons 2616 had so many errors is that nobody read
> the submitted document -- all they did was look at the changes
> doc created by word).
>
> I have not tried using the rfcdiff tool yet.  Which of the various
> diff methods do you think would be best?
>
> ....Roy
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 02:24:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT