Pete Johnston wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> I do think this is the message we want to convey, and if the most
> appropriate way of conveying it is to obsolete the RFC, I would support
> this approach.
>
> If I understand the procedure correctly, the proposed draft text would
> take the form of a new RFC (number to be determined), referring back to
> RFC 2731, and the text of RFC 2731 would remain in place, with the
> addition of an indication that its status was "Historic" and that it had
> been obsoleted by the new doc? Have I got that right, Julian?
Almost.
Except: the actual text of RFC 2731 would not change, but the new
status, and the link to the new document would appear in the RFC
Editor's database (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html>). Pages that use
that metadata, such as <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2731>, then will
indeed include the updated information.
> Re the proposed text, I notice it makes a point of mentioning the
> profile attribute as a new requirement. There are some other areas where
> the conventions diverge (e.g. the use of name values like
> "DC.date.created"), but I'm not sure that the new text needs to list
> them all.
I added this one because it's my understanding that a RFC2731 conforming
page *minimally* needs to add the profile value to conform to DC-HTML.
If there are other changes similar to that, please let me know.
> ...
BR, Julian
|