[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Mar 25 07:42:47 PDT 2014


On Mar 25, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-03-24 19:17, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>>> Sandy and I talked about this, and felt that the info page was the best
>>> choice for two main reasons:
>>> - in the future, we will have multiple publication formats and people
>>> will need to be sent to a location where they can choose the one they
>>> want
>> 
>> People following a link on the web will want to see the HTML version
>> something like 99.9% of the time.
>> 
>> That being said, we need to discuss how to reach the goal of having
>> search engines return meaningful results of RFC searches. If we insist
>> on linking only to the metadata, the *actual* spec will not get the
>> ranking it should have.
>> ...
> 
> Alternate proposal:
> 
>   [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
>              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/TBD/bcp14>.
> 
>              Other formats, updates and errata available from
>              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
> 
> ...where the first URI would be a pointer to the version that people will want to navigate to to *read* the document.

-1. Instead of putting two references for every RFC in the references, we should trust that a person who is clicking on reference URLs will know how to click a second time on the format they want, not the format that we tell them they should want.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list