Robert, Lars, and others, Impressive piece of work but it feels closer to "almost finished but in need of more iteration" than "just about done". A few observations, some left over from a few weeks ago: (1) Like others, I find the "Contents" tab almost never works. I've tried it with selected older RFCs, older I-Ds, contemporary v3 I-Ds, and relatively recent RFCs. I may just have had bad luck, but only the latter seem to actually display the TOC. Suggestion: if this is going to work on some documents and not others, it would be helpful if, for the ones where it does not appear but there is a TOC in the document, either (i) the tab did not appear, (ii) an anchor were generated for the string "Table of Contents" and the "Contents" tab contained a link to it. (iii) some bit of text appeared under the tab indicating that the omission was deliberate and not a fault in the user's environment. Clicking the Contents tab and finding nothing is unnerving. (2) As I think was mentioned on the tools-discuss list, it would be good to have email addresses, not just a link to a profile page, for the authors. The "Email authors" button is a nice addition but, especially when there are a large number of authors, one might reasonably want to contact only one or two of them. (3) I'm a bit confused by the "Email authors" button. My understanding is that, historically, draft-xxxxx.authors@xxxxxxxx reached the authors while draft-xxxxx@xxxxxxxx might reach a somewhat larger list. Has that been changed such that the latter is effectively just an alias for the former? (4) Although I don't have an example handy, especially for a document in the v3 period, it is not unheard of for authors to change over the many versions of an I-D. If, for example, the I-D is at version 10 and authorship changed at version 3, if the user clicks on "01", pulls up that version, and then clicks on "Email authors", they will presumably still get a mailto: link for draft-xxxxx@xxxxxxxx which will presumably point to the latest collection of authors, not the authors for -01. That also raises the question of whether the "Authors" list in the right column will reflect the current (most recent) version or a version that is pulled up by clicking one of the Version numbers. (5) Many thanks for the correction to where links generated by "[RFCnnnn]" or other citation anchors point. (6) I haven't been able to make a good guess at the algorithm, but sometimes, when "... RFC nnnn..." appears in running text, a link is generated. Sometimes it isn't. Whatever the algorithm is, having a line break between "RFC" and "nnnn" or a construction like "... RFCs nnnn and mmmm" seems to suppress it. I don't see this as a big deal as long as all of the citation anchors are correctly picked up (in every document I looked at, they are), but it might be worth a look. (7) Possible bug mentioned previously: If one looks at https://sandbox-htmlize.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-13 (a long, messy, complex, document but current and in v3) some of the sections that have entries in the TOC get anchors and links and some don't, with no pattern at which I can guess. That document illustrates several of the other issues above. It also has nothing under the Contents tab -- if something were generated there, it might be a particularly interesting test case because the TOC of that document is most of seven pages long. (8) Also using rfc5321bis as an example, it has an index and index entries such as ALPHA Section 4.1.2, Paragraph 2, Item 1 A link is generated for "Section 4.1.2", which is great, but the paragraph and item information are apparently ignored. The ideal, at least, IMO, would be to generate a single link to the item, not to link to the paragraph and send the reader hunting. Sadly, the longer and more complex a document gets, the more likely a TOC that always works is important, the more likely the author is to include an index, and the more important it is that index entries actually point to the item being indexed. Of course, several of the comments above may just be arguments for generating HTML from the XML source rather than htmlizing plain text, but that is a different problem. thanks, john --On Thursday, September 22, 2022 14:53 -0500 Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We've set up https://sandbox-htmlize.ietf.org/ to help > continue to get feedback on the htmlization changes a group > led by Lars has been working towards. > > These changes will replace/enhance how pages at /doc/html/... > are built. > > First - Many thanks to the tools-discuss participants who > helped verify this temporary site's configuration, and have > started providing feedback already on this thread: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/?q=help > %20check%20config
