[rfc-i] Landing page & Accept header (Re: Feeding search engines, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01)

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Mar 26 22:02:43 PDT 2014

On 2014/03/26 23:56, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-03-26 15:46, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> On 3/25/14, 8:14 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> Proposal:
>>>   - the landing page for the canonical URI for any RFC should be a web
>>> page like the tools.ietf.org rfc pages: the HTML rendering of the RFC
>>> with links to alternative formats at the top

>> Would this be a frame around the HTML rendering of the RFC or a change
>> to the actual content of the HTML?
> I don't think we should use classic frames (they are invalid in HTML5
> for good reasons).

We should definitely not use <frame> elements. But technically, these 
can be replaced by <iframe>.

In a wider sense of 'frame', the question is how to distinguish the 
actual RFC part from this metainformation, and whether and how to 
include changing metainformation.

The tools version currently includes several pieces of information that 
may change: An errata link that isn't present on RFCs that don't have 
errata, the current status of the document (which may change from 
Proposed Standard to Standard,...), and Updates/Obsoletes information if 

The question is how to be able to present the changing metainformation 
without changing the bits of the document itself. The answer may indeed 
be an <iframe>. Of course, if changing the bits is okay (while changing 
the text itself clearly still taboo), then we don't need to go there.

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list