Initial RFC plugin #20

wants to merge 1 commit into


None yet
4 participants

jkg commented May 16, 2012

This is as much a request for sanity checking and code review at this point, as it is a pull request! I'm not at all convinced I've understood everything in the docs -- that said, this does appear to correctly fetch and parse the data required and spit out a tab separated text file, which was the aim of the game :-)

Let me know!


rpicard commented May 16, 2012

Thanks for your submission! I'll test it out and get back to you.

gghh commented on a695674 May 20, 2012

Hello @jkg, are you aware of this project ? it's a heroku application that offer RFC search as a service. just asking. --cheers


jkg replied May 20, 2012

I did see that (admittedly after I started into this, oh well!) -- it scratches a very similar itch, but I get the impression they're struggling to get the data in the format they need to prettify it, at the moment.

Looks good so far, though!

gghh replied May 21, 2012

@jkg Yes, I had the same impression.

I'd really like to see your plugin coming to life -- keep up the work :-)
I gave my word on another DDG plugin, duckduckgo/zeroclickinfo-spice#21 , so that one comes first, but if you need some monkeycoding / testing don't hesitate to sollicitate me! I am keeping an eye on your repo.

have a nice day,


rpicard commented May 21, 2012

@jkg I'm working on testing this and I have some feedback.

  1. The output.txt file needs to be in UTF-8. I'm sorry that it's not really specified anywhere at the moment; I'm going to fix that. Internally, we need everything to be UTF-8 to process it and get it live. Once output.txt is in UTF-8 I can test it and give you feedback on the plugin itself.

  2. When running the parse script I'm getting this message:

Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at line 25.

I also noticed these comments in

# TODO this parsing is fast/loose and doesn't handle missing/extra values
# needs to check each part more carefully!

It doesn't appear to affect the output but I want to confirm with you that this shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for working with me on this!


rpicard commented May 29, 2012

Don't worry about the UTF-8 issue. I don't know why I was running into that issue but it doesn't appear to be giving me any trouble any more. Everything looks good to me. I'll merge this when it goes live.



rpicard commented May 30, 2012

@jkg I have some feedback I'd like you to work on before I bring this live.

Most of the responses are very short. For example:

rfc 1
rfc 329
rfc 100

Could you work on including more information?


rpicard commented May 31, 2012

Once again, disregard that last comment. I've updated it to improve formatting and add more information. There are still a few bugs to work out before it's live though. I'll let you know if there's something I need you to do.

rpicard added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2012

Merge pull request #20 (rfc_lookup) with a few changes
Categories were added, e.g. "RFCs from 1969"
"Obsoleted" and "obsoleted by" information added
Authors are listed
Fix bug with "\0B" in RFC 6403 causing problems in the database

rpicard commented Jun 5, 2012

@jkg This is now live ( I've merged it into the repo too. I used a link to your GitHub profile on If you have a Twitter account I can link there instead.

Thanks for your submission!

@rpicard rpicard closed this Jun 5, 2012


moollaza commented Jul 23, 2012

@jkg Hey there, when you get a chance, would you mind sending an email to please? Or if you don't mind, can I have your email address? (We have some goodies for our contributors!) Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment