Subject: [Tools-discuss] Agenda links from tools pages

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:22:32 +0100

Hi,

The HTML meeting agenda pages from the tools pages are really useful,
particularly the links to the actual drafts under discussion. However I
would find it even more useful if you gave links to the HTML versions of
the drafts as well as the text version... (hope this makes sense)

Toby
________________________________________________________________________
____
Toby Moncaster, <[email-masked]> Networks Research Centre, BT
Research
B54/70 Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  +44 1473
648734 

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:45:30 -0500

Hi Toby,

> the drafts as well as the text version... (hope this makes sense)

Currently, what happens is this:  drafts which are mentioned in the
agenda by name (simply "draft-ietf-foo-barbar.txt") are given a link
to the HTML version, while drafts which are listed on the agenda with
a complete URL are given a link to that URL, which mostly is to a text
version of the document, rather than a HTML version.

It would be possible to refine this by doing one of the following
alternatives:

 a) Try to convince WG Chairs to list draft names only on the agenda,
    rather than URLs to drafts -- the draft names would then be linked
    to the HTML versions.

 b) Download a copy of the remote URL, convert the text to HTML, and
    link to the HTML version, rather than to the explicitly given URL.

 c) See if the last URL path component matches the name of a draft in
    the archive, and if so, download it and compare the downloaded
    version to the one in the archive, and if it matches, link to the
    HTML version in the archive.  Otherwise, link to the original URL.

 d) Do the same verification as in c), but provide a link to a tool
    which will dynamically generate the html version from the original
    URL -- this would be more processing intensive, but would not
    'lie' quite as much about the URL, since the original URL would
    be part of the query argument to the linked URL.
    
There may be other alternatives, but there is always a potential
issue with letting a generated link point to a different location
than the explicitly listed URL.  From this perspective, alternative a)
above is the best one -- but it is also the one that requires most
education and cooperation from all the WG chairs...

Viewpoints on which of the above alternatives (or something else
entirely) would be most acceptable would be most welcome.

	Henrik