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 16:58:46 +1000
Message-Id: <58861003-B9C7-45D6-BE69-2101670D4964@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

Having looked at this a bit more closely, I think that

1) generating an rfcdiff from draft-lafon-00 and each of the  
partitioned specs, and
2) verifying the text's stability manually, and
3) checking section by section to make sure that no text has been  
dropped (shouldn't be too bad, as most things are in section-sized  
chunks).

would be a viable process for generating the paper trail from RFC2616  
to a partitioned spec.

I say draft-lafon-00 because there's already a paper trail from  
RFC2616 to it, and doing it this way will result in less noise in the  
diffs (e.g., spacing, capitalisation in section heads). I did notice  
a few places where small resolutions had been inserted (against the  
original errata?); would there be a better draft of Yves' and  
Julian's to use as a base?

If people agree with that, it seems like the relevant questions are

a) Is a partitioned specification desirable?
b) If so, is this the right partitioning?

Cheers,

P.S. Roy, are you able to use any version of rfc2xml to generate a  
text I-D from these? I've had several problems, and it's still not  
perfect.


On 18/10/2007, at 12:22 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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/
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 07:00:51 GMT

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