Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2019-08-09 00:35, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> ** I checked Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing and Yahoo for rfc1234. tools.ietf.org
>>> came first each time.
>>
>> i checked my fingers, and tools is where thry go
> And to be clear, I'll be perfectly happy to work at deploying this on
> tools, but I'm not assuming it's going to happen without putting a
> number of hours into integrating the code from the inline errata
> display project for use
> there. I expect to look at that after I'm back from vacation, and can
> find some free time.
From what I can see the rfc-editor.org HTML-ized version seems to be
almost identical to that from tools. (On my screen the font is slightly
smaller, but that might be a local thing)
What if we put a redirect from tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX to
rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.html?
The DT should probably point RFC documents to rfc-editor.org, rather than
tools.ietf.org. For Internet-Drafts, it seems like we ought to bring the
HTML rendering into DT. A reason why the tools.ietf.org copy of the
RFC (and Internet draft) gets a higher SEO is because it's the one that
is easiest to link to a particular section.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
