In message <86oe2f3o2m.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Rescorla writes: >Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> writes: >> It sounds like an awful waste of time and effort to me. >> >> 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. > >It's worth mentioning that this is exactly how book publication >works. Indeed, the copy-edit stage is often done on something >with entirely different formatting from the final version >(e.g., double-spaced). The proofreader is then responsible >for ensuring that (1) Each proposed copy-edit change actually >gets handled and (2) No superfluous changes are introduced >in the typesetting/page layout stage. Then there's a final >author approval of the galleys. > Right. And I've heard authors gripe that they wrote their books with state-of-the-art distributed systems and version control, but because the publisher's typesetting was done on a different, incompatible system, the copy-edit changes were not fed back into the authors' system, making any second edition much more difficult. AUTH48 is often quite prolonged and painful -- and I've experienced this as an author, WG chair, and AD. Let's not make it any worse. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf