[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Mar 26 19:56:35 PDT 2014


On 2014/03/27 04:23, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26/03/2014 19:37, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2014-03-26 01:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 2) Maybe it should also be stated that "tinyurl" and its equivalents
>>> are not allowed, i.e. URIs must point directly to the target. However,
>>> I suppose DOIs are allowed.
>>> ...
>>
>> What about PURLs?
>
> I have no opinion about that; I had to Google PURL...
>
> But it does look as if this area needs more comprehensive language than
> the current draft has. As far as I can see, devices such as DOIs, PURLs
> and tinyurls do nothing to ensure that the target content is stable,
> which is what really matters for a reference.

As far as I understand, both DOIs and PURLs are explicitly there to 
provide URIs for access that is stable over time, although the 
underlying form of the data (in the DOI case, as John explained) and the 
actual details of the text (e.g. for a PURL to the "latest version" of 
something) may change.

On the other hand, the main purpose of URI shorteners is to create short 
URIs, not necessarily with any thought to timelessness.

Regards,   Martin.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list