[rfc-i] URIs in references, was: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Mar 27 00:32:13 PDT 2014
On 2014-03-27 02:57, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> This is not to say that we shouldn't work hard to get the "best, most
> stable references possible", but we should be aware that we are not
> living in a perfect world, nor in a world that needs to be perfect.
That being said, the pattern I have seen in the past when discussing
URIs with the production center was something like:
- URI was *removed* (is a *potentially* dangling URI worse than no URI
at all, forcing people to use a search engine right away), or
- replacing a direct URI by something less specific (see latest
discussion about what the URI for an RFC erratum should be).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest