[rfc-i] For v3: remove <format>?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Dec 26 13:17:39 PST 2013


On 2013-12-26 20:38, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> On 2013-12-24 08:28, Nico Williams wrote:
>>>>> I'd like a way to link to different formats of the same referenced
>>>>> document.
>>>>
>>>> You can do that inside <annotation>.
>>>
>>> This needs to be first-class.
>>
>> Why? I imagine that it is the reference, not the formats, that is important in the RFC.
>
> Because some of the formats we'll render to (e.g., HTML, but also PDF)
> will have clickable links, and it'd be nice to have (in superscript,
> or in parenthesis) alternate format links for the same reference.
>
> For example... references to RFCs!  It'd be nice if the HTML rendering
> of an RFC's references had clickable links to the canonical format
> (today: .txt) of each referenced RFC and additional clickable links
> for the HTML and PDF renderings of the referenced RFC.

I don't understand why that's desirable, but you can do that today with 
<annotation>.

> ...
> Even without a decent example like above, what if someone wanted to
> analyze references, perhaps check to see what formats are most used at
> various different times?  With first-class format meta-data they could
> that with trivial XSLT for all RFCs for which XML source is available.
> ...

What's used is what's being *used*, thus the server log will be much 
more interesting...

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list