Hi - > From: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "IETF-Discussion Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:07 PM > Subject: Re: Image attachments to ASCII RFCs (was: Re: Last Call: 'ProposedExperiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text'to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)) ... > I don't know what other authors do, but I edit all the changes back into my > xml2rfc source, iterating until my output matches, modulo numbering and > paragraphing and whatnot, what the RFC Editor produced. This way I am > sure to catch any mistakes introduced by the editing process. I also end > up with a source file that's a useful starting point for the next revision > of the document. > > This is quite tedious but not especially difficult as long as you have provided > xml2rfc sources to the RFC Editor as a starting point. If you haven't done that > my guess is the process isn't nearly as nice. I've used the same process for RFCs formated using nroff/groff. It was pretty easy, and wasn't even particularly tedious. (Though I suppose the fact that we're still reading this thread is evidence that we have a rather high tolerance for tedium. :-) ... > The RFC Editor provides an annotated differences listing showing you what > changed between your final draft and what's in the actual RFC. It is a simple > matter to duplicate this tool and use it to tweak your sources to match the > actual RFC. I've tried using change bars and other fancier tools, but I have > concluded they're more trouble than they're worth. ... This matches my experience as well. Change bars are helpful to a reader, but much less helpful to an editor. As for tools with "built in" change tracking, the ones I've tried have been more trouble than help, and seem to be easily confused by incidental layout tweaks. Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf