[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 25 08:05:47 PDT 2014

On 2014-03-25 15:42, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-24 19:17, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Sandy and I talked about this, and felt that the info page was the best
>>>> choice for two main reasons:
>>>> - in the future, we will have multiple publication formats and people
>>>> will need to be sent to a location where they can choose the one they
>>>> want
>>> People following a link on the web will want to see the HTML version
>>> something like 99.9% of the time.
>>> That being said, we need to discuss how to reach the goal of having
>>> search engines return meaningful results of RFC searches. If we insist
>>> on linking only to the metadata, the *actual* spec will not get the
>>> ranking it should have.
>>> ...
>> Alternate proposal:
>>    [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>>               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/TBD/bcp14>.
>>               Other formats, updates and errata available from
>>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
>> ...where the first URI would be a pointer to the version that people will want to navigate to to *read* the document.
> -1. Instead of putting two references for every RFC in the references, we should trust that a person who is clicking on reference URLs will know how to click a second time on the format they want, not the format that we tell them they should want.
> ...

Yes, it's *possible* to navigate where you want. But it's inconvenient. 
Of the things we could link to (info page, plain text, HTML, XML, 
PDF...) what do *you* expect to choose most of the time?

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list