[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Mar 25 09:51:05 PDT 2014
On 3/25/2014 9:00 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Why wouldn't the link lead to a document in the same format as the document from which the link came? I'd expect PDF to link to PDF, HTML to link to HTML, etc. The only one that would really work nicely would be HTML, of course, unless you had a special PDF reader that fetched the URL rather than launching the browser.
+1, although there is a competing concern about having multiple
"primary" links for a document, which could be confusing.
Still, the premise of your point is to consider what the user will
expect. I wonder whether there are common conventions for handling the
issue of documents in multiple forms, and what template for links to
them to use? If there is already common practice, we should use it.
URLs for RFCs:
1. A link for a document should produce that document. It should
not produce a page requiring another keyclick, before getting that
document. Contrary to many of the folk in this discussion, regular
users do not like being given lots of choices all the time; they see it
2. We now have 3 different 'base' URLs for RFCs. rfc-editor.org,
tools.ietf.org, and datatracker.ietf.org. This smacks of incoherent
organization by our community, adding ambiguity and wasteful operations.
We need to standardize on a single, common base reference. IMO, the
datatracker interface is by far the best of the 3:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2821/ leads directly to a
page with a rich set of meta-data as well as at least the initial part
of the document, though I'd wish the "?include_text=1" weren't needed in
the URL to get the whole document.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2321 replicates access to
meta-data. Not sure whether it is as complete, but I do see that it
requires another click to get at the actual document. Bad.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821 produces the whole document,
but appears to have a subset of the meta-data. (No, I didn't do a
The IETF spends scarce resources and expensive money to maintain all of
this. It's wasteful and confusing.
More information about the rfc-interest