[rfc-i] DOIs and RFCs
dhc at dcrocker.net
Thu Feb 13 09:15:58 PST 2014
On 2/13/2014 6:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> ietf-specific: "10.123456" "/" ietf-series series-num
>> ietf-series: "bcp", "std", "rfc"
>> series-num: (1-9) 0*(0-9)
> (no leading zeros)
I believe that that is incorrect. At the least, it's certainly not
required in real life, so why impose it here?
>> b) As indicated in the above bnf, I suggest separating the series
>> label from the document number through a syntax convention, rather than
>> requiring the parser to know all the strings.
> The series is letters, the number is digits. Seems pretty easy to parse to me.
You are imposing a limitation on the series name that does not exist and
is not needed.
Syntax should be syntactic, not de facto derived.
Don't invent restrictions that are not essential, especially when
creating a post hoc convention.
On 2/13/2014 6:37 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> I believe whatever the future "canonical" URI of a RFC is, it
>> should be what people most likely want to see - an HTML version,
>> potentially augmented with up-to-date status information.
> What I want to see depends on the device I'm using. It might be
> HTML, it might be PDF, it might be ePub. A nice page that lets me
> pick one is just the ticket.
Why should a citation be restricted from specifying the form of the
document? Why should human interaction be required before retrieval is
More information about the rfc-interest