[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
Sun Mar 30 23:21:11 PDT 2014
On 2014/03/28 02:22, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:57:00AM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> with a search engine. We can also publish an erratum; for an actual
>> example, please see
> an erratum to update a URL that was correctly resolvable at the
> time of publication is at least questionable.
I know what you mean. But if you have a better way to help people find
the right reference, please tell us.
Also, please think about how this case would be handled for books (where
errata come from, after all). If the publisher became aware of the fact
that an update was necessary, they would indeed add this to the errata
(which can be just a leaflet added to the book). They want the book to
be useful for people who buy it anew, and wouldn't care too much how it
worked at the time of (first) printing.
> While the example
> illustrates (with another leap of faith, though) that discriminating
> along the lines of 'private' vs 'corporate' is brave, the chosen
> approach appears to have scaling issues.
Of course. For good reasons, I'm not trying to say "accept anything and
deal with problems later using the errata process". I'm just saying "in
case we get a prediction (about URI stability) wrong, errata are one way
to keep the reader up to date".
More information about the rfc-interest