[rfc-i] The alternateURI element in v3

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 8 11:10:08 PDT 2014


On 2014-05-08 18:39, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>> This is clean for ISSN and DOI. But, I thought you wanted individuals
>> to also be able to say in drafts "here is a URL for my own
>> representation of this draft". If that is still true, the value of
>> "target" would be that URL. We could say that we only define semantics
>> for urn:issn and doi:, not other URI. Is that reasonable?
>
> 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.
>
> If we do more than "alternate" versions, we would indeed need a link
> type ("relation type"  in RFC5988-speak).
>
> WRT to "my own representation of this draft" -- this is likely something
> that wouldn't be allowed in the canonical format, right?
>
> So yes, we could say that *if* the target URI matches a specific syntax,
> it has a special role. For "urn:issn", it would end up in the
> boilerplate, replacing the current default value of "2070-1721".
>
> For DOIs I believe we currently do not have a place to put it, right?
> ...

Paul was bugging me to answer the question about other URIs.

So, no, for now we wouldn't define any semantics for other URIs.

It would be up to the RSE / RFC Production Center to decide what other 
URIs would be allowed in the canonical RFC.

In general, I would except a processor to emit one HTML link element per 
XML2RFC link element.

And finally, it occurred to me that the ISSN is not an "alternate" URI 
for the document, thus we probably would need the relation type, and use 
something like "isPartOf".

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list