On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 1:12 PM Jay Daley <exec-direc...@ietf.org> wrote:
> > > > On 17 Apr 2025, at 08:03, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > On 16.04.2025 20:19, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> Jay, > >> > >> Thanks for the update. I am puzzled by the following paragraph. > >> > >> > Working cooperatively with authors who use GitHub is a more complex > >> > proposition and is still being looked at. A stumbling block is the > >> > regularly requested feature for the editors to send PRs, labelled as > >> > format edits or content edits or by severity or with some other label. > >> > Unfortunately this just does not fit with the way that editors work, > >> > which is to identify and correct issues as they are found during a > >> > review pass, whether those issues are formatting or content, or low > >> > severity or high severity. Switching to a process with multiple edit > >> > passes, or where every edit leads to an individually labelled commit, > >> > would drastically increase the editing time and the IETF LLC has made > >> > it clear that this would not be acceptable. The RPC plans to put out a > >> > proposal for community discussion at IETF 123 Madrid on how it might > >> > support authors who work in GitHub. > >> > >> First, breaking up edits between copy edit and formatting is > >> orthogonal to GitHub, although they serve the same basic purpose, > >> which is to make it easier for authors and the community to determine > >> what has changed. > >> > >> Second, I am surprised to hear that you think this is prohibitive, > >> because to a first order this separation is what happens when you make > >> the first editorial pass on the markdown and then translate it to > >> XML. There are of course some minor formatting changes that get made > >> in markdown, but based on my experience backporting RPC changes into > >> markdown I could at least live with that separation. I agree that > >> individual commits would be prohibitive, though what *would* be > >> valuable would be if the aforementioned markdown changes were > >> presented as a PR so they could be reviewed and updated as necessary > >> using our ordinary processes. > >> > >> On the bigger picture, whatever the RPC's current processes, standard > >> practice in book publishing is to have copy-editing occur on > >> un-typeset versions of the author's manuscript (e.g., a Word file) > >> followed by typesetting of the final manuscript. This roughly > >> corresponds to the content/formatting split that is discussed > >> here. Can you say why you believe this would be prohibitive in this > >> case? > > I read what Jay wrote differently. He was stating that there is a > request that people tag PRs with different qualities like priority or > formatting and that these PRs be handled differently based on the tags, and > THAT flow would fly in the face of how what editors do today. Am I > misreading what was written? > > That’s what was meant yes. > I don't know what you mean by "handled differently". What I'm asking for is a smal set of individual PRs, one for each pass through the document, which can then be handled in sequence. As I said, this is standard practice in other publishing environments, so I'm asking for more detail on why it's so difficult. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
