[rfc-i] The alternateURI element in v3
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Thu May 8 09:51:01 PDT 2014
On 5/8/14, 9:39 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> At some point, we need to decide whether we just want to allow
> "alternate" versions of the document (and which), or just links in general.
I have to admit, I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea of putting
"alternate" versions of a document in the canonical file. There is
enough of a challenge with unstable reference URIs, but at least there
is a strong argument for including them anyway. I don't see the strong
argument for including a URI for a personal copy of the file.
Am I missing the point?
More information about the rfc-interest