[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Apr 14 15:15:07 PDT 2009
At 10:53 AM -0700 4/9/09, Joe Touch wrote:
>Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2009-4-9, at 19:30, Joe Touch wrote:
>> This exposes implementation details that I'd rather see hidden for a
>> permanent URL.
>Both / and ? expose implementation details.
In URLs, a "?" is *not* an implementation detail, as RFC 3986 makes clear: it has an actual meaning that is different than "/". A query is different than a hierarchical part, which is different from a fragment.
>I was giving it as a counterexample, a reason to let the RFC Editor
>specify the URL to be inserted, rather than to force them into a
>particular implementation, since they have to maintain it anyway.
Future RFC Editors have to maintain the URLs created by previous ones. It would be good if every RFC Editor thought about the people who will follow them and make their URLs simple to implement for all time; that is, use just only hierarchical parts. That is why I proposed what I did for the proposed URLs.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest