 |
Interesting how they managed to make a simple URL much more cryptic. I imagine the author simply pasted this into an email, and the editor had no clue about web resource addressing schemes. Why should he. (Someone at least knew that you can omit the http:// protocol prefix.)
Homework for today: write a 1-page essay on the effect of popular digital resource addressing scheme implementations and how well they they transcend media boundaries. (For extra points: address the ephemeral character of such schemes, and how search engines fit into all this.)
Comments
So you mean drop the www. and the index.html?
Yeah fair 'nuff :)
Max Howell, 2007-06-16 20:54 CET (+0100) Link
I reckon most people won't even bother typing in a URL that's 35 characters long, and half of it immemorable techno slang. As opposed to a memorable URL that's simply a concatenation of a cute neologism ("antipope") and a short name, with very little techno slang in between.
Additionally it amazes me that people still create web publishing software that doesn't automatically remove index.* filenames in its links when they're obviously not required. There are too many reasons to omit them, starting from the obvious advantages of implementation-independent addresses down to the practical annoyances this causes, such as demonstated by this very case.
My point is simply: as we're relying more and more on such tools people should really put more effort into making the use convenient and transparent. In this instance technology failed.
</soap box>
Martin Dittus, 2007-06-16 21:27 CET (+0100) Link
Oh, and I also think the best addressing scheme is a memorable name. Transcends technology and will still work decades into the future. (But that's more of a sidenote.)
Martin Dittus, 2007-06-16 21:32 CET (+0100) Link
Comments are closed. You can contact me instead.