In <101132327677(_dot_)20021112095032(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com> Dave Crocker
<dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles> Again, it should not be necessary to give a full URL for an RFC.
including the url makes an online copy of the document quite a bit more
convenient.
In the end, it is up to IANA how they format the registry, but we should
be giving them good examples of the kind of thing we would like to see.
If the registry, as maintained by IANA, is in a web format, then quoting
just the RFC numbers visibly, with the URL hidden behind it for clicking
purposes, would be fine. No clutter to confuse the viewer.
If the registry is to be available in printed form, then again the RFC
numbers should appear at those points, and the full titles, URLs, etc
should be listed in a References section at the end.
To take another example. The draft specifies just three protocols to which
this registry is to apply, mail, news and HTTP. Each header is to have
one or more of these listed against it.
So the word 'mail' is going to occur in hundreds of places. Fine. But we
don't want a full visible URL for RFC 2822 at every one of those.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5