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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Feb 1 11:42:13 PST 2010

Tim Bray wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>> And while we're on the subject of URIs, it might be a good idea to
>>> consult RFC3986, where you'll find no support for the notion that
>>> suffixes or "extensions" have any semantic weight whatsoever.  -Tim
>> Except as specific examples in Section 1.1.2?
> I repeat, this organization's specification for URIs contains no
> support for the notion that extensions or suffixes have any semantic
> import.  You're trying to make something up that doesn't exist.

Nope - I agree that we still use the content type. I'm pointing to the
fact that using the filename suffix is still supported anyway.

>> Yes, content-type solves this problem in terms of having one URI syntax.
> Good.  We agree that the problem is solved. Why continue this discussion?

No need - I think we're all in agreement that the URI should look like:


AND that the URI should return the authoritative version (currently text
or postscript) as currently known.

There can be other URIs that point to metadata, e.g.:



-------------- 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/20100201/3bacffa5/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list