Open ajeanmahoney opened 1 year ago
This pattern matches the old tools.ietf.org URL structure.
Is having "/rfc/" in the path necessary?
I'd say no.
BibXML can introduce a better naming structure, and implement redirection logic for the /public/rfc/bibxml*
structure.
Well, they're used for generating RFCs and internet drafts that lead to RFCs, so the name was considered appropriate.
Also, a newer naming structure than "bibxml3" and "bibxml4" has been used for years (e.g. bibxml-drafts, bibxml-misc, bibxml-w3c, bibxml-ieee, etc), with bibxml2, 3, 4, 5, etc all symlinked into the other name. And yet, people still insist on using bibxml# instead of the symbolic names.
If a better naming structure is going to be created,
Describe the issue
Currently bibxml URLs contain "/rfc/" for entries that are not RFCs. For instance: https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.irtf-cfrg-bls-signature.xml https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml4/reference.W3C.xml-events.xml
Is having "/rfc/" in the path necessary?
Code of Conduct