W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2006

Notes from my review of 'The use of metadata in URIs'.

From: Rice, Ed (ProCurve) <ed.rice@hp.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:28:36 -0700
Message-ID: <7D6953BFA3975C44BD80BA89292FD60E04E656A4@cacexc08.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

Noah,

I reviewed this document and only have a few comments.  Seems like its
very close.

Comments;

1) Intro; editorial comment.. I'd remove the 'for retrieval or for other
operations'.  Just delete it :)

2) Section 2.2 bring up the point that you cannot assume a .jpeg is a
.jpeg.  This is actually something I've never liked much.  In the days
of spam/phishing people are starting to look at URL's to see if they're
what is expected.  If a .jpeg extension is really an executable.. I see
that as an issue.  Granted, this is outside the scope of your paper as
your citing another reference, but I think it should be considered.

3) In section 2.4 you say that if there is a page where the user enters
the city, then its ok to use the inspected URI and create new software
to build them.  I don't agree, this seems like it would still be
guessing (at best).. The best practice would be to direct people to the
page where they do the entry.

4) section 2.5.. Editorial comment, seems odd to reference in the first
line, the 'example above'.. Shouldn't each section largely stand alone?

5) section 2.5 the 'good practice' seems to conflict with the section
2.2 (as noted above).. 

6) your conclusion seems to also imply that if you don't want (or
expect) the user to 'read' the URL, then its at least ok (and maybe
expected) that you use larger or more complex URI's that cannot be
easily guessed.

That's it :)  very close.
-Ed
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 02:28:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:40 GMT