On Thursday, January 12, 2006 08:27:44 PM -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin"
<smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <A9062431F4994D02CD846987@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeffrey
Hutzelman writes:
It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have
two stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of
copy-editing, and then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after
the final conversion.
That assumes that the xml->nroff conversion is always error-free. I
think that that's an overassumption.
I don't think it makes that assumption. It assumes that the conversion
is usually error-free with respect to content, and thus that the vast
majority of problems will be discovered in the first phase, when any
corrections can be incorporated into XML that will then hopefully be
available when the time comes to work on the next protocol version.
Of course, any changes introduced in the XML->nroff conversion would have
to be corrected, which is why the authors would still need to sign off
on the final published text.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf