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

Re: Dates in URIs?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:10:26 -0500
Message-Id: <711b65726608ad4e637b5e595cdbc182@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Mike Schinkel" <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>

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 GMT

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