[rfc-i] Feeding search engines, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 25 08:45:58 PDT 2014


On 2014-03-24 19:17, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-03-24 18:55, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>      The following format is required when a reference to an errata
>>>>> report
>>>>>      is necessary:
>>>>>
>>>>>         [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Errata ID NNNN, RFC NNNN,
>>>>>                    <http:/www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>>>>
>>>>>         [Err1912]  RFC Errata, Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978,
>>>>>                    <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Big -1. The RFC Editor should provide stable URIs for errata, and they
>>>>> should be used in the reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so
>>>>> this
>>>>> is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we make it "RFC Erratum RFCXXXX-NNNN", so we can drop the "RFC
>>>>> NNNN"
>>>>> entry?
>>>>
>>>> The errata system is slated for a pretty extensive overhaul as part of
>>>> the fallout from the upcoming format changes.  I suggest leaving the
>>>> Style Guide guidance as is for now, noting that it will change
>>>> significantly in the next 12-24 months.
>>>
>>> -1. This is new text. Either don't have it at all, or get it right now.
>>
>> I argue that the new text is, while not a complete answer to what we
>> need to do with errata, is still an improvement over what we have today.
>
> I believe the first point I made needs to be addressed:
>
> "Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so
> this is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere."
>
> Also, why can't we define the stable errata URI right now?
>
>> ...
>>> Also, I don't think pointing readers at the info page does them a
>>> favor right now, as the thing they likely want to see is the actual
>>> document, not the metadata about it.
>>
>> 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.
> ...

To illustrate the point:

   http://bit.ly/1jqVkzz

...and now think about why the first ietf.org/rfc-editor.org hit is on 
page 4.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list