Subject: Re: [rfc-i] some thoughts about errata

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:10:14 +0100

On 2017-02-12 12:33, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2017-02-08 16:26, John Levine wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> 2) For each RFC, there should be a machine-readable (*) HTTP resource
>>>>> (**) offering status information about the set of erratas present for
>>>>> that RFC.
>>
>> That's not much harder.  Agaim we already have this:
>>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=nnnn
>>
>> The current result is formatted to look nice in a browser, but since
>> it's all generated on the fly from a database, a cleaner URL that
>> returned the result in XML or JSON would be straightforward.
>> ...
>
> Right.
>
> In the meantime I put something together to scrape data from these pages
> (see
> <https://github.com/reschke/xml2rfc/commits/master/parse-errata.xslt>),
> and used it (optionally) in rfc2629.xslt.
>
> Example:
>
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#rfc.section.5>

Now slightly refined and documented here: 
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc-editor.errata>

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest