Subject: [Tools-discuss] tools/html -> datatracker/doc

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:15:58 +1000

Is there any reason we aren't redirecting URLs of the form

http://tools.ietf.org/html/{draft-name}{draft-revision}

to

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/{draft-name}

?

(where draft-revision is optional, of course).

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:30:48 +0200

> (where draft-revision is optional, of course).

I don't think the datatracker URI is very useful for *reading* IDs -- 
for instance, it misses lots of features tools.ietf.org has (CSS print 
support, link highlighting), and it also has lots of information that 
only becomes relevant very late in the process.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:32:32 +1000

Can't we port those features to datatracker?

Having so many URLs* for the same bit of information is pointless, and more importantly it confuses newcomers.

Cheers,

* I didn't even mention http://www.ietf.org/id/{draft-name}{draft-version}

On 19/05/2010, at 9:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I don't think the datatracker URI is very useful for *reading* IDs -- for instance, it misses lots of features tools.ietf.org has (CSS print support, link highlighting), and it also has lots of information that only becomes relevant very late in the process.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:46:13 +0200

> Having so many URLs* for the same bit of information is pointless, and more importantly it confuses newcomers.

I think one important difference is that the documents on tools.ietf.org 
are generated (and re-generated) on demand, but then served from static 
files. Anything else would likely become a problem (with, for instance, 
Wikipedia linking to these URIs).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:47:30 +1000

You've lost me. If it's a performance problem, that can be fixed. If it's a 404 issue, we can redirect to the datatracker URLs. What am I missing?

Cheers,

On 19/05/2010, at 9:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I think one important difference is that the documents on tools.ietf.org are generated (and re-generated) on demand, but then served from static files. Anything else would likely become a problem (with, for instance, Wikipedia linking to these URIs).
> 
> Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:55:58 +0200

On 19.05.2010 13:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...

It *could* be fixed. But it might be a lot of work.

I really don't see a problem that needs to be solved. Reading IDs for WG 
chairs, authors, and IESG members has different requirements than for 
most other people. Not sure why they need the same URI.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:59:29 +1000

Adding some print css, a redirect rule and a reverse proxy is a lot of work? *shrug*

I agree it's not a problem for people who are used to it and the IETF. For the rest of the population of the planet, it's very odd and confusing to see slightly different versions of documents floating around, with different capabilities, all available at slightly different times. 

On 19/05/2010, at 9:55 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I really don't see a problem that needs to be solved. Reading IDs for WG chairs, authors, and IESG members has different requirements than for most other people. Not sure why they need the same URI.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 07:41:46 -0500

For what it's worth ...

> I agree it's not a problem for people who are used to it and the IETF. For 
> the rest of the population of the planet, it's very odd and confusing to 
> see slightly different versions of documents floating around, with 
> different capabilities, all available at slightly different times.

I would agree with Mark that the current situation doesn't make it EASIER 
for part-time participants to figure out how things work ... sure, that's 
not a problem for me, but I do the IETF full time, and we keep saying we 
want more interaction with implementers and less dependence on full-time 
standards guys, right?

Thanks,

Spencer