[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
tony at att.com
Wed Mar 26 07:58:45 PDT 2014
On 3/25/14, 9:50 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2014/03/26 01:40, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
>>>>> 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
> That's definitely the direction that I think we should move towards.
An alternative is that the info page includes the HTML version's text at
its bottom, sort of like the way that the datatracker includes an html
marked up version of the text form.
More information about the rfc-interest