Re: new stuff in draft edits

Jim quoth:

> What we do seem to have is a change visibility problem. Moving back to 
> Word would be a big step in the direction of solving this. If we use a 
> reasonable document model, converting back to XML at the end shouldn't 
> be too heinous.
>

Having migrated *from* Word in the midst of this process ( I think 
bis-06 was the first draft produced from XML) I am loath to go back.  I 
have a couple ideas to make the process easier however:

  - When I submit a draft I have to generate a text version anyway -- I 
usually save that to the ietf.webdav.org/webdav area as well.  I can 
generate an HTML version too.  It's a bit of a pain to do that for 
every single change I do (the ones that aren't submitted to the 
official internet-drafts repository) but perhaps I can automate that if 
there's demand, and I'll certainly do that whenever we get an official 
draft version bump.

  - I can do XML diffs and save them to the same place.  Again, not 
every week, but every so often.  We'd eventually have a set of diffs 
that constitutes the entire set of changes starting from the oldest XML 
version available -- 07-08diff.txt, 08-09diff.txt and so on.

  - I already maintain a complete list of changes including those made 
before the draft format went from Word to XML.  Each change has draft 
#'s along with it and issue codes so it's got a lot of context for 
understanding specific changes.  If there's anything missing at all 
it's an oversight and can probably be fixed if it's pointed out to me.
http://ietf.webdav.org/webdav/rfc2518bis/RFC2518%20Changes.doc

  - When I write significant new text in the draft, I can also submit it 
to the mailing list -- particularly when it's new sentences or entire 
paragraphs.  I did this with the partial-success text on Oct 11.  I can 
continue to do this as it seems appropriate , on special request, etc.

Lisa