Re: Proposed Quality Tip -- URI Usability

> 
> On Mar 26, 2004, at 06:05, Rajasekaran Deepak wrote:
> 
>> A proposed quality tip, "URI Usability", is attached.
>>
>> <http://students.iiit.net/~deepakr/uri-usability/>
> 


Comments on tip:

1) "URIs must normally not have extensions"
goes against much practice ...
(that's not disagreeing but wanting to see what others say)
I wonder if stating it more in terms of benefits would be more effective.

e.g.
"On many servers, URIs include a file extension corresponding to the mime 
type, or a directory name indicating the language, however, it often works 
better to exclude the file extension and language from the URI and make 
better use of content negotiation."




2) Natural Languages:
"The extension must be as specific as possible"
does not work well with RFC 3066 bis
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-phillips-langtags-01.txt
(note all the dates have the wrong year - it is a 2004 draft)

Two issues:
a) RFC 3066 bis says
[[
Use as precise a tag as possible, but no more specific than is
        justified. For example, 'de' might suffice for tagging an email
        written in German, while 'de-CH-1996' is probably unnecessarily
        precise for such a task.
]]

(I suspect that similar text is in RFC 3066 which is the current best practice)

b) RFC 3066 bis introduces productive use of script codes, in which case 
(nearly) all en-us text could be marked up en-latn-us to show that it is in 
Latin script. This tip would then suggest (in direct opposition to RFC 3066 
bis), that en-latn-us should be used instead of en-us.

I suggest that the wording should be changed to more accurately reflect RFC 
3066, and RFC 3066 bis wording. (Or maybe we should comment on RFC 3066bis)



Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 06:57:49 UTC