- From: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:50:43 +0200
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: site-comments@w3.org
2009/7/1 Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>: > > On 1 Jul 2009, at 2:56 PM, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > >> 2009/7/1 Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>: >>> >>> On 1 Jul 2009, at 12:53 PM, Giovanni Campagna wrote: >>> >>>> I've been following the work on the new version of the W3C site for a >>>> while, and I noticed that almost all the WG home pages, as well as >>>> other pages with dated URIs or other weirdness are not currently >>>> working. >>>> I expected that being caused by the refactoring and resulting into new >>>> sensible path component. I sent this email to make sure this happens. >>>> >>>> As an example, now we have /Style/CSS for CSS WG, but /html/wg for >>>> HTML WG and /2001/tag for the TAG or /2001/sw for the Semantic Web >>>> Activity. >>>> >>>> I think there are three models to solve this: >>>> 1- /WG/CSS, /TAG, /activities/SemanticWeb, /IG/Math, /XG/ModelBasedUI >>>> I.e., one (virtual) directory for kind of group, followed by the group >>>> name >>>> >>>> 2- /Style/CSS, /TAG, /SemanticWeb/SWDeployment, /Markup/HTML, >>>> /RWC/WebApps, /Incubator/ModelBasedUI >>>> I.e. one (virtual) directory for Activity, followed by the group name >>>> >>>> 3- /1996/CSS, /2001/TAG, /2001/SemanticWeb, /2007/HTML, /2008/WebApps, >>>> /2008/ModelBasedUI, /2007/XHTML2 >>>> I.e. the group name, associated with the year of start >>>> >>>> All group names should be consistenly CamelCased if possible (but I >>>> know that W3C servers are case-instensitive) >>>> >>>> Of the three possibility, I personally favor number one, because >>>> dropping the short name could bring to the list of currently active >>>> working groups (one of the most difficult pages to reach, probably, >>>> together with the list of TR ordered by working group). >>>> Dropping the short name from 2 could give directly the activity page, >>>> but I suppose that every WG will keep a link to its Activity (and >>>> every Activity to its Domain), and people often want to group by >>>> technology, rather than by activity. >>>> Option n°3 is the one I dislike most, because currently >>>> http://www.w3.org/XXXX is member / team only and thus completely >>>> useless. >>>> >>>> I know that the W3C has URI persistence policies, but you can still >>>> keep the old link and set a 301 Moved Permantly redirect to the new >>>> location. Also, most URIs are not covered by those policies. >>> >>> >>> Hi Giovanni, >>> >>> While consistent URIs are nice, they should not be required. People >>> should reach pages through search engines or by following links, not >>> by having remember URIs. >>> >>> I hope that the new site makes it easier to find information, without >>> needing >>> to worry about URIs. >>> >>> _ Ian >> >> Most of time you need the same pages time over time, for example you >> just need to check some WG's tracker or someother WG's blog. >> In that case, you either use bookmarks, which may become too crowded >> if you have to mantain a lot of addresses, or you manually type the >> address. > > You shouldn't have to type addresses. Why shouldn't you? Or actually, why do we have addresses at all, if you don't have to type them? Why not just UUID? >> Normally, you just type few characters and the browser >> automatically finds the complete URI from the history. >> I personally type addresses everytime I need something at the www.w3.org. > > I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the new site makes it possible for you to > avoid > typing URIs. You cannot do anything to that, because I access pages without starting from the main page and following links. I just want to go straight to specific resources, and the easiest way is to type the address. > >> >> In addition, you need to type URIs if you write them on emails, >> twitters, et similia. It is easier to remember >> <http://www.w3.org/Join/AsInvitedExpert> than >> <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/ieapp/>, and sure you don't want to >> say to your colleague "goto to w3c home page, type 'invited expert >> application' in the search field and hope for the better" >> >> That was from an usability point of view. The other point is that it >> looks better. > > Agreed that shorter is better. :) Happy to see we agree on this. > Ian > >> >>>> >>>> Hope that this proposal will be accepted, >>>> >>>> Giovanni Campagna >>>> >>>> PS: sending this because I saw >>>> <http://beta.w3.org/2004/08/invexp.html> which should be >>>> <http://beta.w3.org/Consortium/invexp> or >>>> <http://beta.w3.org/Partecipation/invexp> (without the html suffix) >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >>> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 >>> >>> >> >> Giovanni >> > > -- > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > Giovanni
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 20:51:23 UTC