Subject: [xml2rfc] HTMLized format has changed!

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:35:44 -0500

I notice today that HTMLized format has degraded from what it used to 
be. (I noticed this with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8866.) I haven't 
extensively studied it, but what I notice is that the TOC is no longer 
hot linked to the corresponding sections of the text.

Is this an accident? Can it please be fixed?

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 01:24:27 +0100

On 2021-02-02, at 00:35, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I notice today that HTMLized format has degraded from what it used to be. (I noticed this with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8866.) I haven't extensively studied it, but what I notice is that the TOC is no longer hot linked to the corresponding sections of the text.

The TOC detector of the HTMLizer was killed by removing the page numbers from V3 .TXT RFCs.  So you will see this from RFC8650 onward.

> Is this an accident? Can it please be fixed?

It is a “small matter of programming” :-)
But there is the cognitive dissonance of fixing an htmlizer when V3 has such a wonderful .HTML output.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 14:36:33 +1300

> But there is the cognitive dissonance of fixing an htmlizer when V3 has such a wonderful .HTML output.

If I was in charge, I'd put priority on the new diff tool for V3.

   Brian

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:03:34 -0500

> The TOC detector of the HTMLizer was killed by removing the page numbers from V3 .TXT RFCs.  So you will see this from RFC8650 onward.

I can see how that could happen. But of course the TOC is still there, 
just without page numbers, and linkage to the sections is still useful.

> But there is the cognitive dissonance of fixing an htmlizer when V3 has such a wonderful .HTML output.

I do like the new html output, and I preferentially use it when just 
reading or consulting a document. But when I am reviewing document 
changes, using the rfcdiff tool that works on txt format, and I need to 
consult more of the document to understand one of the changes I want to 
look at a version that matches the txt format line-for-line. Of course I 
could just look at the txt version, but it is harder to navigate. Using 
an HTMLized version with TOC links is ideal for this.

Also, I'll often start on a document from the HTMLized version because 
it has links at the top to all useful formats as well as the diffs. The 
new HTMLized version is also deficient in this regard because it doesn't 
have links to the diffs.

(A one click reference to the diffs is very convenient in contrast to 
using the rfcdiff home page and filling in the names of the docs to be 
compared.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:05:49 -0500

> If I was in charge, I'd put priority on the new diff tool for V3.

I would like to have a clear understanding of the functionality and 
output format proposed for this tool before prioritizing it.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 18:12:41 +0100

Am 02.02.2021 um 18:03 schrieb Paul Kyzivat:
>>> be. (I noticed this with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8866.) I
>>> haven't extensively studied it, but what I notice is that the TOC is
>>> no longer hot linked to the corresponding sections of the text.
>>
>> The TOC detector of the HTMLizer was killed by removing the page
>> numbers from V3 .TXT RFCs.  So you will see this from RFC8650 onward.
>
> ...

Source is over here: <https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/>. I bet
Henrik takes patches.

Best regards, Julian