nico at cryptonector.com
Thu May 22 13:45:14 PDT 2014
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-05-22 22:26, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> I can't find that, but in the meantime, please see my post about use
>>> of URNs for this. ISTM that the right way to handle this is via URNs,
>>> with xml2rfc resolving in some fashion (in code), perhaps using a list
>>> of bibxml repositories' base URLs could be provided as local
>> We cannot change these documents to use URNs until there is an operational
>> URN conversion service. Many of us have been asking for one for years.
> I really don't get it. (yet?)
> The URNs for RFCs what we have identify the RFC, not a reference to that
> RFC, in particular not one in a specific format.
> It would be helpful if someone who thinks that this is a good idea could
> state a) what URNs to use, and b) to what they should be resolved.
I take it you're responding to me, not to Paul's comment about URN
First, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2014-May/006971.html
But I'll repeat myself: IETF URNs for RFCs (and I-Ds, and ...) refer
to RFCs (and I-Ds, and ...), yes, of course, but there's no reason
that they can't also refer to their corresponding bibxml entries when
used in a context that needs bibxml.
Nor is there any reason that we couldn't extend the existing URN
schemes to support "fragments" to identify specific aspects of RFCs
(and I-Ds, and ...). "Aspects" like: specific output formats, bibxml
references, I-D tracker URL, ...
More information about the rfc-interest