[rfc-i] "canonical" URI for RFCs, BCPs
John R Levine
johnl at taugh.com
Mon Feb 1 12:19:08 PST 2010
> 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.
No, we're not, but since you seem to feel so strongly that it's important
to return unpredictable data, I'm not going to keep arguing.
Note that type negotiation doesn't do what you want; all of the Postscript
RFCs have text stub versions, and if a web browser says it prefers text to
postscript, it'll get the text. You really need a container that points
to the various versions (no doubt with a flag of some sort in case it's
not obvious which version is authoritative) so people can find what they
> There can be other URIs that point to metadata, e.g.:
OK, so info/rfcnnnn is the useful canonical URL which returns a container
with pointers to the various stuff. Close enough.
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
More information about the rfc-interest