- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:35:37 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@W3.org>
On 2012-04-26 10:24, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Apr 26, 2012, at 07:51 , Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2012-04-25 22:56, Robin Berjon wrote: >>>> Further more>if< the reference is to an IETF document for which the link will go 404 after the document expires, then I don't think that would be particularly defensible in a REC (not sure that's the case here, but links from a rec should be to documents that will, with high probability, remain accessible far into the future, IMO.) >>> >>> If IETF does indeed mint uncool URIs it's certainly a problem, but I would expect that problem to be taken to the IETF. As things stand though, the draft has expired but the link still works. >>> ... >> >> The spec uses a URI on tools.ietf.org, which is *not* the official IETF URI for an internet draft. > > That's clearly a spec bug :) I'd recommend editing in place (but that's not a TAG decision to make). Just for the record: the tools.ietf.org variants are a lot more useful to point to, as they provide a slightly HTML-ized variant with useful anchors. So I was pointing this out just in order to explain why it doesn't 404. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 08:36:13 UTC