- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:16:13 -0500
- To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Dan: >> 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. Good question. I guess I was speaking my broadly of the strong "URL-opacity" advocacy on www-TAG and REST-discuss. However, whereas I didn't see anything "wrong" in the finding it, it was the omissions that concerned me. And I don't necessarily think these omissions would need be addressed in metaDataInURI-31 but I do think it would be good if a future issue could address them. The ommissions that concerned me were guidance about how best to use metadata in a URI if metadata is going to be used. And I don't mean "well known names" but instead things like "If you are going to include a year in a Url, you should considering the following: etc. etc." Which is a good segue to what you and I were going to discuss offline...? -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 07:16:22 UTC