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

Re: Dates in URIs?

From: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:48:07 +1000
Message-Id: <A07BC395-6F9B-41C0-9140-3FF97378A6E4@nicta.com.au>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>



John wrote:

> It does not.  The W3C often assigns a year number as the most  
> significant
> part of the URI path so that it can be sure that URIs are unique
> over time, even as parts of the URI space are created and destroyed.
> It is the TAG, not the particular resource, that dates to 2001.

Doesn't that make it even worse? - two bits of "metadata" stuck in  
the same URI
only one of which is about the resource.

Noah wrote:

> Exactly.  I'd like to point out that John's observation is completely
> consistent with the draft finding [1], which I think does a pretty  
> good
> job of making clear that the only metadata inferences you can  
> depend on
> are ones for which the "encoding of such metadata [I.e. in the URI] is
> documented by applicable standards and specifications".

I was not looking at Section 2.1 but Section 2.5.

Imagine I am Mary (don't try too hard) and instead of the Bus, I see  
the report URL.
What is "suggestive" to Mary (a non W3C person) about those 4  
characters "2001"
has something to do with years. The same that Chicago is related to  
cities.

When I see this URL: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-CSS21-20061106/>
I get some good suggestions about its age.


Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 07:48:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:42 GMT