[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Mar 26 14:36:10 PDT 2014
On 2014-03-26 21:58, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 12:58 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>>> If we're doing kludges, it would also be reasonable to put the whole
>>>> RFC into the page up to some size limit like 100K, and truncate it
>>>> with a link for the rest beyond that. I see that there are 873 RFCs
>>>> larger than 100K, and about 6000 smaller.
>>> Right, and this will be exactly the wrong behavior in many cases, of
>>> no benefit in most cases, and will happen infrequently enough that it
>>> will be seen as an error and reported to the tools team every time it
>>> happens! :)
>> Since it's exactly what the datatracker does now, it can't be that wrong.
> The datatracker currently servces as a secondary path to documents. Most
> search engine results point to tools. Most citations are either tools
If they do to an IETF site at all.
For instance, search engines rank the W3C's copy of RFC2616 higher than
then IETF copies, because, guess-what, it's usable HTML.
> or rfc-editor.org.
> Consequently, we don't really have much operational data on the way
> 'average' users will react to the 'partial output' model.
> As with Ted, I find the current behavior annoying.
Absolutely. If I end up on datatracker.ietf.org looking at a spec, my
first thought is usally "getmeoutofhere" :-)
More information about the rfc-interest