Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:06:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Culf <culf@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: URLs too transient? Re: www/en/security/security.sgml update Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012211405320.1858-100000@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20001215121319.00900860@mail.accessone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://www.purl.org/ Culf. On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Bengt Richter wrote: > PMJI, but I had a possibly useful thought (?): > > Using URLs/links in docs is great when there is assurance > that they can be followed, but for a long-lasting document, > is it wise to point to internet sites per se, unless there > is some kind of official guarantee that they will persist? > > In a hardcopy manual, you wouldn't refer in a footnote to > other hard copy located at the library on 123 Main St, Anytown, > USA. You would refer by title, author, and ISBN number, etc., > so it could be found in any similarly indexed repository. > > That last is the key (pun) to what I am getting at: To have > reliable persistent distributed docs, the references have to > be in terms of a reference system, not locations. URLs serve > both purposes, so it's confusing, but it bears thinking about > (IMHO). Look at where that confusion led in the DOS/windows > file system and you realize the pain caused by including impermanent > physical/hardware references ('<drive letter>:') in what should be > pure information references. > > Imagine seeing '#include "/dev/<hard disk id>/.../actual-file.h"' > in unix source! Gak. Thank goodness the unix founding fathers thought > to provide mount, to keep the information space separate and clean. > > For a document that may exist live on the internet, on local disks, > on CD, and possibly bound paper, "http://" is a little like "/dev/", > so should non-relative references be strictly controlled/validated? > > If you went with the unix philosophy, I guess you would have a mount > point (e.g., /http, like /cdrom), and keep the physical source and > file system format separate. Then we could have a document hierarchy > based on a mount point as unchanging root, instead of using site URLs > as root(s). Maybe not so much would have to change, except being very > careful about non-relative links. > > What URL represents a reliable document root forever? I wouldn't matter, > if you could just plunk it into fstab. > > Just my USD.02 > > Regards, > Bengt Richter > "We are all ignorant, just on different subjects." -- Will Rogers > > At 02:16 2000-12-15 -0600 Michael C . Wu wrote: > >Well, here is another update. :) > > > >I removed the list of security advisories and simply pointed > >people at the url to fetch them, this should be lower maintainence > >for our security staff. IMHO, this is also a better way to save > >bandwidth for people in low-bandwidth countries. To list > >the whole set of advisories seems pointless. > > > >I am not sure how best to link to /auditors.html, so please make sure > >you do it the Right Way. :) > > > >A link and explanation is added to the auditing project and > >its homepage. > > > > > >-- > >+------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >| keichii@peorth.iteration.net | keichii@bsdconspiracy.net | > >| http://peorth.iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. | > >+------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > >with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012211405320.1858-100000>