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

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Mar 25 21:28:14 PDT 2014


On 3/25/2014 7:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> 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.
>
> In DOI-land, the landing page invariably is a description of the
> document, typically with an abstract and links to whatever versions
> are available.  If the document's behind a paywall, they send you off
> to pay, but even for stuff like the ACM Digital Library where most
> users have a subscription, you still arrive at a landing page, not the
> PDF of the article.
>
> As I've said several times, I couldn't tell you what format I prefer,
> because it varies depending on what I'm doing.  I don't think that's
> unusual.


So you seem to be saying that we should move from long-standing model 
which can provide the full content in one click, to a model that always 
requires two clicks.  So while the rest of the web advises reducing the 
number of click, we'll be increasing.

Again, note that tools.ietf.org and datatracker.ietf.org can both give 
the full document in a single click.  They put some metadata at the top, 
including links to alternate forms of the document, if the user prefers 
one of those others.

A landing page is a barrier, not a benefit.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list