- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:39:54 +0900
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, spec-prod@w3.org
- Cc: lesch@w3.org
I definitely prefer [1]. Citations should be made by
publisher, not by printer or copy-editor (which is
what rfc-editor mostly does).
Regards, Martin.
At 03:08 01/12/28 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The Manual of Style should give advice on how to reference RFCs. It
>seems, that each editor has a different preference chosing the URI for
>the RFC, you can find inter alia these:
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt
> [2] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt
> http://ietf.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt
> http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfcXXXX.txt
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfcXXXX.txt
> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfcXXXX.txt
> http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt
>
>Where the first scheme is most common. It's also the one I prefer, since
>the [1] archives cover more RFCs than those of [2] and [1] is simply
>shorter to type, but the Manual itself uses [2] and
><http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html> notes:
>
>[...]
> Be advised that there is a slight time period when the two directories
> will be out of sync. When in doubt, the RFC Editor Web Page is the
> authoritative source page.
>[...]
>
>So maybe [2] would be the right choice. However, I want consistency :-)
>
>regards,
>--
>Bj$B‹S(Bn H$B‹I(Brmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>25899 Dageb$B—M(Bl { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Friday, 28 December 2001 01:41:04 UTC