W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: best URL format

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:22:09 +0000
Message-ID: <50E031F1.2060108@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacharya@gmail.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> correction
> is example.com/arch/web-meet-2013 
> <http://example.com/web-arch/web-meet-2013> better 
> than example.com/building-arch/web-meet-2013 
> <http://example.com/building-arch/web-meet-2013>

None of the visible forms of the URL are absolute.  They all differ from 
the machine readable form.  If the intent is have something that can be 
manually re-keyed, I believe you should have the http:// part as well. 
I know that modern browsers will infer that and some even trim out the 
http:// in the user interface display.  At the very minimum, I would 
keep the //.

If the intent is not for re-keying, the user should not be seeing the 
URL, unless they use a diagnostic mode.  If this is for use in print, I 
would use the style in which Thunderbird rendered this to plain text, 
but using a plain text link name before the <>.

What is more important than length is the ability to commit it, in 
pieces, to short term memory, so a cryptic, but very short form, could 
be worse than a longer form made up of real words.  The time needed to 
type it is also a consideration.

In my personal view, if you use a very short form, it should be an alias 
to a form that is properly structured.  Moreover, in my view, it should 
be possible to manually trim components from the right and still have a 
valid URL, not an access denied message.

Incidentally, I recently had a machine generated email which used the 
http://-less form for both the human and machine readable parts. 
Thunderbird couldn't treat it as a relative mailto URI and wasn't 
prepared to treat it as an http: one.

> *
> "Terms & Conditions
> Disclaimer: The contents of this e-mail are highly confidential and may 

No they are not!

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 30 December 2012 12:22:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:09:14 UTC