[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Feb 1 09:46:56 PST 2010

John M Levine wrote:
>>> Honestly, that strikes me as being the absolute worst of all possible
>>> worlds.  You have a URL that might return a text file, might return a
>>> Postcript file, and in the future might return something else.  How
>>> is that useful to anyone?
>> > ...
>> It would be useful for anyone who wants to produce "the" canonical URI
>> for a given RFC -- this is what started the whole discussion.
> Right, we're back to the unproductive metaphysical discussion.
> Let's say, hypothetically, that the RSE came up with a canonical XHTML
> format with fields for pointers to text, PS, errata, prior and
> subsequent versions. Other than the fact that it's not what we did in
> 1973, why would that be a less satisfactory canonical form than a
> pointer to a file in an unknown format?

Because one points to a file, and the other points to information about
a file.

If I cite a file, I point to the file.

Or do you cite books as "see card catalog, drawer #32, Yale University,..."?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20100201/fc1a6df6/attachment.sig>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list