- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:52:55 +0100
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: Rajasekaran Deepak <deepakr@students.iiit.net>, www-qa@w3.org
> > 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