[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 1 09:58:53 PST 2010
Joe Touch wrote:
> "HTTP" is just as likely to be invalid; why is it OK to pin down the
> protocol, and not the file type?
Because otherwise you can't specify a URI in the first place.
That being said: I don't think HTTP *URIs* are going to go away anytime
soon. They may be *dereferenced* differently at some point of time, but
> Note that W3C's concern is what happens when the file *changes*. For
> authoritative RFCs, this should not happen anyway.
Again; the question was about a template for the canonical URI for *any*
RFC number, which includes RFCs written and published in the future.
We should be able to answer that.
More information about the rfc-interest