This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 10411 - Why are all the RFCs referenced in .txt versions? The HTML versions are more convenient (and it's silly for HTML to avoid the HTML versions!).
Summary: Why are all the RFCs referenced in .txt versions? The HTML versions are more...
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-08-20 17:36 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2010-10-12 16:20 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2010-08-20 17:36:50 UTC 
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#refsRFC1345

Comment:
Why are all the RFCs referenced in .txt versions?  The HTML versions are more
convenient (and it's silly for HTML to avoid the HTML versions!).

Posted from: 68.175.61.233
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-24 23:09:40 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: Are there canonical HTML versions that don't suck?
Comment 2 Julian Reschke 2010-09-25 06:37:15 UTC 
There are no official HTML versions.

That being said, the HTML versions on tools.ietf.org are definitely better to read, print, and link to.
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor 2010-09-26 12:14:11 UTC 
I don't know if these versions are "canonical", but they seem a lot nicer than the text versions (using coloring and some auto-hyperlinks), and they're hosted at ietf.org:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1345
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-28 19:43:38 UTC 
I'm not sure I'd say those are better, personally...
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor 2010-09-29 20:10:18 UTC 
That RFC is a bad example for why the HTML format is better.  Here's a better one:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321

It has a table of contents with hyperlinks so you can jump directly to the section you want, and there are lots of hyperlinks to sections and other RFCs that would be a much bigger pain to follow in the text version.
Comment 6 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-30 04:37:05 UTC 
Yeah, that one's ok. Fair enough.
Comment 7 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-10-12 06:34:42 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments.
Comment 8 contributor 2010-10-12 06:35:25 UTC 
Checked in as WHATWG revision r5604.
Check-in comment: update ietf refs
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5603&to=5604