Subject: [Tools-discuss] rfcmarkup change proposal: Handling of RFC reference links

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:40:28 +0200

The htmlized versions of RFCs and drafts available at tools.ietf.org
(e.g., http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4567) are currently generated with
links of references pointing to the entry in the reference section
of the document; e.g., if the document says

   "The key management data SHALL be base64 [RFC3548] encoded and comply
   with the base64 grammar as defined in [SDPnew].  The key management
   protocol identifier, KMPID, is defined as below in Augmented Backus-
   Naur Form grammar (ABNF) [RFC4234]."

then RFC4234 in "[RFC4234]" links to the entry for RFC 4234 in the
reference section.

However, when I'm reading marked-up RFCs, I find that I often wish that
the link for RFC references would be directly to the referenced RFC.

So the question here is, how does other people feel about this?  Would
it be an improvement to change the reference links for RFCs specifically
to link directly to the RFC, rather than to the entry in the reference
section??

Regards,

	Henrik

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:04:50 +0300

Personally, I would prefer the direct link. (And a
link to the reference section only if the reference
is something for which you do not have a direct
link.)

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:08:26 +0200

> is something for which you do not have a direct

+1

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:15:24 -0400

An option would be to provide both, one via the link on the text, and
then have a small arrow next to the text that jumps off to actual
document. Take a look at wikipedia references that go outside of wikipedia.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:33:23 +0200

Tony Hansen wrote:
 
> document.

That would break the "original look and feel", where 72 characters in
a line are shown as 72 characters in a line under all circumstances.

The small arrow could be implemented as PNG resulting in an ugly fat
"broken image" icon with browsers not supporting PNG.  Or as Unicode
arrow working only with browsers supporting Unicode and fonts offering
the arrow character in question.

Ignoring some AAA guidelines (ab)using "[RFC" for one link and "1234]"
for the other link could preserve the "original look and feel".  IMO
one direct link (as is) is perfect.

Frank

P.S., the new <http://link.example> and ftp links are great, thanks.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:12:59 +0200

Hi,

> a line are shown as 72 characters in a line under all circumstances.

Yes.  I have also considered the possibility of adding a second link,
but with the premises of the current format, being completely true to
the original layour, it doesn't really work.

...
> IMO one direct link (as is) is perfect.

Ummm -- except the status quo is not a direct link, but a link to the
references, which in turn has a link to the actual RFC.  (And this is
what I'm considering changing, so it becomes a direct link.)

> P.S., the new <http://link.example> and ftp links are great, thanks.

Ah.  Good :-)

	Henrik