Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:24:34PM +0200, > Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote > a message of 66 lines which said: > > > My "reading between the lines" interpretation of RFC 4693 > > Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier > > than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for maintaining > > ordinary ietf.org web pages. > > That's not my reading at all. This section explains clearly the > problem with Web pages: > > Web pages, which can be changed without notice, provide very > little ability to track changes, and have no formal standing -- > confusion is often seen about who has the right to update them, > what the process for updating them is, and so on. It > is hard when looking at a Web page to see whether this is a > current procedure, a procedure introduced and abandoned, or > a draft of a future procedure. > ... > o Unlike Web pages, there is an explicit mechanism for > finding "all current versions", and a mechanism for > tracking the history of a document. Many web page management systems (such as wiki engines) have reasonably good mechanisms for tracking the history of web pages. And similar processes for updating them (and "status line" at the beginning of page) could be applied for any pages, so this does not really explain why they had to be kept separate (and called differently) from "ordinary" web pages. (I've heard rumors that at the time when RFC 4693 was written, updating www.ietf.org web pages meant emailing your text to the secretariat staff, who then edited the actual pages more or less manually. This kind of system would easily explain why www.ietf.org is a mess... and IONs would certainly be an improvement over that.) Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf