Subject: [sidr] running idnits on working group drafts

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:54:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

I am speaking here as co-chair, but without a coordinated position with my 
co-chair, so take this as a personal position.

Part of doing the shepherding document writeup for a publication request 
is to attest that the shepherd has personally run idnits on the draft.

You may be surprised to learn that none of the drafts that were past wglc 
passed the idnits.

The routing ADs have indicated a distaste for drafts that do not pass 
idnits.  There are various levels of idnit-ness.  The strongest objection 
was to references that did not have the right name, making reviewing 
difficult.  But the distaste applied to all.

For a document to be published, idnits will have to be addressed in some 
way at some point in the process.  It is true that idnits does warn about 
things that are not fixable (version numbers in referenced drafts being a 
good example).  But fixing easily fixable things saves time, messages, 
angst, keystrokes....

Document hygiene.  An idea whose time has come.

--Sandy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:41:14 -0500

> co-chair, so take this as a personal position.

i agree with the below...

> Part of doing the shepherding document writeup for a publication request is
> to attest that the shepherd has personally run idnits on the draft.
>
> For a document to be published, idnits will have to be addressed in some way
> at some point in the process.  It is true that idnits does warn about things
> that are not fixable (version numbers in referenced drafts being a good
> example).  But fixing easily fixable things saves time, messages, angst,
> keystrokes....
>

not JUST a good idea! :)

thanks!
-chris