Reconstruct links? [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 14:29:00 EDT
Message-id: <9409061825.AA01811@ulua.hal.com>
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Reconstruct links? [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
In message <9409022203.AA13952@hook.spyglass.com>, Mike Knezovich writes:
>
>3. We plan to use FrameMaker for the document editing, generating plain
>text from there for the RFC. This will require some combination of
>compromise in the FrameMaker version plus manual cleanup work in the text
>version. I think WebMaker is an acceptable FrameMaker-to-HTML solution,
>though I'm sure some manual cleanup will also be required here. I think our
>time will be better spent on this approach than on the search for a perfect
>rosetta-stone solution.
Sounds good.
But I just thought of something: a lot of the hyperlinks disappeared in
the ->Frame conversion, since we only intended to use the Frame version
to generate hardcopy. I don't know what WebMaker does about preserving
cross references and/or hyperlinks, and I don't know how much value folks
see in the hypertext cross-references in the HTML version.
But be aware that the Aug22 Frame version doesn't have all the links!
>5. We'd very much like the WG to meet at the conference in October. In
>fact, we hope to have a nearly-final, this-is-your-last-chance draft
>available for distribution there. Tim Krauskopf, director of development
>here, has made it a priority.
As I won't be there (my wife and I are expecting a child, and the due
date is October 22), I'd like to request a snapshot of the document before
you take it to Chicago. I'll review it and get my comments to that meeting
somehow.
Dan