[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Mar 25 18:50:53 PDT 2014
On 2014/03/26 01:40, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-25 16:50, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Yes, it's *possible* to navigate where you want. But it's inconvenient.
>>> Why is it inconvenient? It's a single click.
>> It's a second click. For you and me it's easy because we know about the info page, but in general people will need a moment to understand where they are, and where they have to click to get to the actual spec.
A lot of people will not click a second time.
> After they have learned that once, I don't think they'll forget it. You might; I don't.
Some people might click a second time, but what they may remember is
that this site is inconvenient (because it requires a second click).
They won't come back anymore.
>>>> Of the things we could link to (info page, plain text, HTML, XML, PDF...) what do *you* expect to choose most of the time?
>>> I will choose HTML most of the time, but I have no idea if I am typical or, even if I am, how typical I am. I certainly don't think I am typical enough to want to waste the vertical real estate of the vast majority of references in an RFC on that gamble.
>> I'm not too concerned about vertical real estate, that's so text/plain-ish :-) Also, I don't think that additional link is really needed, as it's already linked from the spec's boilerplate.
> Now *that's* a good argument for pointing to the HTML only in references. If the HTML has a very clear pointer to the info page up near the top, the second click being to the info page would be reasonable. At that point, there is no need to put it in every reference.
That's definitely the direction that I think we should move towards.
More information about the rfc-interest