[rfc-i] URL checking

[Joe Touch]

Keith Moore wrote:
>>Rather than continuing the debate on whether URIs are persistent or how
>>persistent, let me ask a different question:
>>
>>- would a test that says "page found" be sufficient? I.e., anything
>>other than a connection error or page-not-found is fine?
> 
> 
> I don't know how to answer a question about sufficiency.  A test such
> as you describe would improve the quality of RFCs. 

It would probably catch most of the typos, but not all, and doesn't
validate content (mistaken URLs).

> A manual test -
> say, one which checked to see that that URL pointed to something that
> looked like the document being referenced, would improve the quality
> of RFCs more than an automatic test.  It's a question of cost-vs-benefit.

I suspect the cost of manual checking by others is prohibitive - authors
ought to do those checks.

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20051018/63d0d2e0/signature.bin