[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Best Practice for URI construction?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• From: Greg Hunt <greg@f...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:57:53 +1100
• In-reply-to: <439B2933.6010902@u...>
• References: <200512101629.jBAGT4aD026907@b...> <439B133F.7070800@u...> <0c5mp1l48oi61pts4vctm72l1b6hl70ep9@h...> <439B2933.6010902@u...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Ian,
Isn't that a specific case of a URL referring to a human-readable web 
page in a site addressed to people?  When the resource does not provide 
for navigation (media files or database files do not usually point at 
each other, web pages usually do point at each other) truncating the URL 
is an attempt to get to a web page (in essentially a parallel 
information structure) that then points to the thing that you want.  The 
fall-back to web pages is not part of the general resource model and 
nothing stops anyone from creating a site that contains no html if they 
only want to to provide resources other than web pages. 

People do all kinds of bizarre things with web browsers and a 
human-readable web site architecture should accommodate that, but web 
site architecture and resource identification are different things. 

Greg

Ian Graham wrote:

>
>
> Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
>> * Ian Graham wrote:
>>
>>> One observation/result was that a substantial fraction of users 
>>> expect truncating a URL at 'natural' places to return meaningful 
>>> results. This, for example, is one of the intuitive 'search' 
>>> algorithms people use when a link doesn't work. As an example, if
>>>
>>> http://somewhere.org/US/IL/
>>>
>>> is a valid URL, then truncating this to
>>>
>>> http://somewhere.org/US/
>>>
>>> should both work and provide meaningful information.
>>
>>
>>
>> People who do this commit web architecture crime, the TAG commands
>> "People making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties
>> of the referenced resource".
>
>
> Well, since likely < 0.002% of Web users have read the spec, and since 
> that recommendation is counter to any intuitive understanding of a 
> URL, that particular recommendation is .... err... useless.
>
> People do what make sense to them. And since URLs have structure, some 
> people (and likely some software) naturally look for meaning in it.
>
> I mean how often have you gone to a URL, got a 404, and then chopped 
> bits off until you found something relevant/useful?  And how often 
> were you [expletive deleted] when that didn't work?
>
> Designing for what people actually do is, imo, a characteristic of 
> good design, even if this contradicts a spec.
>
> Ian

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>

• References:
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>

• Prev by Date: Re: how to use xml:base and relative URLs with SAX/Java?
• Next by Date: What kind of content is allowed in simple types & simple content?
• Previous by thread: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Next by thread: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread