In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Rescorla writes:
>Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It sounds like an awful waste of time and effort to me.
>>
>> It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have
>> two stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of
>> copy-editing, and then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after
>> the final conversion.
>
>It's worth mentioning that this is exactly how book publication
>works. Indeed, the copy-edit stage is often done on something
>with entirely different formatting from the final version
>(e.g., double-spaced). The proofreader is then responsible
>for ensuring that (1) Each proposed copy-edit change actually
>gets handled and (2) No superfluous changes are introduced
>in the typesetting/page layout stage. Then there's a final
>author approval of the galleys.
>
Right. And I've heard authors gripe that they wrote their books with
state-of-the-art distributed systems and version control, but because
the publisher's typesetting was done on a different, incompatible
system, the copy-edit changes were not fed back into the authors'
system, making any second edition much more difficult.
AUTH48 is often quite prolonged and painful -- and I've experienced
this as an author, WG chair, and AD. Let's not make it any worse.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
