[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Apr 14 15:44:02 PDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 10:53 AM -0700 4/9/09, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> On 2009-4-9, at 19:30, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/info?rfc=2468
>>> 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.

Agreed. However, which is chosen is based on an implementation choice,
which is what I was referring to.

>> 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's the part I don't follow. The info about an RFC is clearly a
query, so it is just as reasonable to always have all queries appear as
what they are -- and just as maintainable.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list