On 1. Mar 2022, at 00:24, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:17:24AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> A full review should not be necessary. >> >> I wish that were true... > > IMO a full review is necessary, not least to ensure that the document > remains self-consistent and that any changes applied during editing are > uniformly applied to all relevant parts of the document, not just in the > subset of places that the editor noticed. Absolutely. (One more example for an API change, but not within the document: The most recent AUTH48 document I’m involved with has 69 <tt tags. The RFC editor rightly noted: >> FYI, the text rendering of the <tt> element was changed in Sept. 2021 >> (xml2rfc release 3.10.0). <tt> no longer yields quotation marks in the >> text rendering. >> >> It does yield fixed-width font in the HTML and PDF outputs. >> In light of this, please review and let us know if you want to >> make any changes (e.g., add quotation marks that would be in all >> three output formats). The documents were of course mainly authored before the semantic change. So one more task for the full reread: Check that the sentences still are understandable in the TXT form with the <tt information lost, and decide where quote marks need to be added. This can only be decided by metamorphosing into a newly interested reader and reading through the text. As noted in Star Trek 6, those metamorphoses can be exhausting.) Grüße, Carsten
