[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Mar 25 16:25:08 PDT 2014
On Mar 25, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-03-25 23:15, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> In 184.108.40.206, use of "web caching services" is archaic. Also,
>>> "personal space" sounds quite touchy-feely. It is also
>>> inappropriate: in the security field, many vulnerabilities
>>> are described only on personal blogs, not organizational blogs or
>>> academic papers.
>> Web caching services still exist. Do they have a different name now?
>> I also don't have a better term for personal space - do you have any
>> Regarding the overall guidance, something needs to go here to indicate
>> what the editors will question. Editors have no way of determining if
>> www.university.edu/~joe is a tenured faculty at an institution that will
>> never delete his web directory, or an adjunct faculty whose web space
>> may disappear along with his grant without a great deal of work. And
>> while I think we are likely going to have to accept most of the web page
>> references that come in as informative references, normative references
>> must be as stable and reputable as possible given the fluctuations of
>> the web world.
>> So, what that means for the text is: I am open to clarifying the
>> existing text, but not to removing it entirely. Some proposed
>> alternative text:
>> The use of URIs in references is acceptable as long as the URI is the
>> most stable (i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be continuously
>> available) and direct reference possible. The URI will be verified as
>> valid during the RFC editorial process. Personal web pages and web
>> caching services are not considered stable and will not be accepted as
>> normative references. Informative references to personal web pages
>> (including blogs) are discouraged, but are acceptable if they are deemed
>> the most stable reference available.
> That doesn't work for me.
> It makes Mark Nottingham's and Tim Bray's super-stable blog URIs disallowed (personal web page), but would make a random blogger.com page acceptable.
> Yes, it's hard to check. In doubt, trust the author of the spec. He/she is interested in providing useful links.
+1 to all that.
More information about the rfc-interest