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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 25 09:49:27 PDT 2014

On 2014-03-25 17:40, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-25 16:50, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Yes, it's *possible* to navigate where you want. But it's inconvenient.
>>> Why is it inconvenient? It's a single click.
>> It's a second click. For you and me it's easy because we know about the info page, but in general people will need a moment to understand where they are, and where they have to click to get to the actual spec.
> After they have learned that once, I don't think they'll forget it. You might; I don't.
>>>> Of the things we could link to (info page, plain text, HTML, XML, PDF...) what do *you* expect to choose most of the time?
>>> I will choose HTML most of the time, but I have no idea if I am typical or, even if I am, how typical I am. I certainly don't think I am typical enough to want to waste the vertical real estate of the vast majority of references in an RFC on that gamble.
>> I'm not too concerned about vertical real estate, that's so text/plain-ish :-) Also, I don't think that additional link is really needed, as it's already linked from the spec's boilerplate.
> Now *that's* a good argument for pointing to the HTML only in references. If the HTML has a very clear pointer to the info page up near the top, the second click being to the info page would be reasonable. At that point, there is no need to put it in every reference.

The text

   "Information about the current status of this document, any errata, 
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 

...has been there for quite some time now (last sentence in "Status of 
This Memo").

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list