- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:10:26 -0500
- To: "Mike Schinkel" <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
On Nov 9, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > Just my two cents on this subject (and it is a subject that is of > significant interest to me, see my signature) > > TAG may has established what is correct and what is not correct about > meta > data in URIs, but I personally think that finding is a bit unrealistic. > Yes, if you are dealing with professional developers and IT folk, but > not > with the general public. Even though technical professionals really > want > the URLs to be opaque, Are you suggesting the TAG finding says that URLs should be opaque? We worked pretty hard to strike a balance. I'd like to keep the discussion focussed on the words in the finding. Which part of the finding do you think gives the wrong impression? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20061107.html http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31 > real world people are creating URLs and real world > people are seeing and using URLs every day. The more they come in > contact > with URL the more they will believe that URLs have meaning and the > more they > come to rely on that meaning. As such I think it is ivory-towerish and > a bit > out-of-touch to say they shouldn't rely on meaning in URLs. Saying > people > shouldn't infer meaning isn't going to make them stop. Indeed, the finding acknowledges this: "Still, the ability to explore the Web informally and experimentally is very valuable, and Web users act on such guesses about URIs all the time." -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 22:10:29 UTC