In message <86oe2f3o2m(_dot_)fsf(_at_)raman(_dot_)networkresonance(_dot_)com>,
Eric Rescorla writes:
Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> 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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf