Comments for Blog for The Well Designed URLs Initiative http://blog.welldesignedurls.org Advocating User-Centered URL Design Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:01:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Best Practice: Always ID your Heading Tags by Mike Schinkel http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/18/always-id-heading-tags/#comment-186515 Mike Schinkel Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:01:36 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/18/always-id-heading-tags/#comment-186515 Hi @Brett: Thanks for the comment. Basically you want to make sure all your heading tags have "id" so that someone who wants to deep-link into you web page can do so. The <a href="http://wordpress.org/about/philosophy/" rel="nofollow">WordPress Philosophy page</a> is a good example of this. See how they have IDs for each of the heading tags? For example; <em><strong>Simplicity</strong></em>: <ul> <li>http://wordpress.org/about/philosophy/#simplicity</li> </ul> Hi @Brett:

Thanks for the comment. Basically you want to make sure all your heading tags have “id” so that someone who wants to deep-link into you web page can do so. The WordPress Philosophy page is a good example of this. See how they have IDs for each of the heading tags? For example; Simplicity:

]]> Comment on Best Practice: Always ID your Heading Tags by brett melton http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/18/always-id-heading-tags/#comment-186503 brett melton Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:44:02 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/18/always-id-heading-tags/#comment-186503 I usually give all of my tags either an id or class to style with CSS. I'm not sure if I should be doing every single one though. Whats the best practice in doing this? Brett I usually give all of my tags either an id or class to style with CSS. I’m not sure if I should be doing every single one though. Whats the best practice in doing this?

Brett

]]> Comment on Use rel=”spam” to Fight Comment Spam? by Administrator http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/08/rel-spam-to-fight-comment-spam/#comment-169057 Administrator Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:46:09 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/08/rel-spam-to-fight-comment-spam/#comment-169057 You are not understanding the proposal. A few links marked rel="spam" would have zero effect. Thousands or tens of thousands of links to the same domain marked marked rel="spam" when few if any linked to the same that were not marked spam would have an effect. It would be a combination of the absolutely number of rel="spam" links and the ratio of rel="spam" to non rel="spam". In this model there'd be no way you could tag your competitors and have a reasonable effect; your links would not be significant enough. If I called you "stupid" you'd slag it off and nobody would pay me any mind. But if everyone starts calling you "stupid" them people who don't know you are going to start to believe it. See? You are not understanding the proposal. A few links marked rel=”spam” would have zero effect. Thousands or tens of thousands of links to the same domain marked marked rel=”spam” when few if any linked to the same that were not marked spam would have an effect. It would be a combination of the absolutely number of rel=”spam” links and the ratio of rel=”spam” to non rel=”spam”.

In this model there’d be no way you could tag your competitors and have a reasonable effect; your links would not be significant enough. If I called you “stupid” you’d slag it off and nobody would pay me any mind. But if everyone starts calling you “stupid” them people who don’t know you are going to start to believe it. See?

]]> Comment on PageRank by Phill http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/26/pagerank/#comment-149480 Phill Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:01:23 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/26/pagerank/#comment-149480 A very old post, but very very good read! I love your theory here, particularly the 3 P's of page rank. cheers Phil A very old post, but very very good read! I love your theory here, particularly the 3 P’s of page rank.

cheers

Phil

]]> Comment on About URI Templates by KevBurnsJr http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/03/about-uri-templates/#comment-143533 KevBurnsJr Sun, 09 May 2010 00:33:18 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/03/introducing-uri-templates/#comment-143533 I wrote a URI Template Parser in PHP. http://lab.kevburnsjr.com/php-uri-template-parser It passes most of the test cases in the spec. http://php-uri-template-parser.hackyhack.net/tests.php You can find it on GitHub. http://github.com/KevBurnsJr/php-uri-template-parser I wrote a URI Template Parser in PHP.
http://lab.kevburnsjr.com/php-uri-template-parser

It passes most of the test cases in the spec.
http://php-uri-template-parser.hackyhack.net/tests.php

You can find it on GitHub.
http://github.com/KevBurnsJr/php-uri-template-parser

]]> Comment on PageRank by Floyd Nenninger http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/26/pagerank/#comment-137151 Floyd Nenninger Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:19:47 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/26/pagerank/#comment-137151 There is a heavy and mixed emotions about the theory of Giggle deleting a web-site if your caught. However, if your cautious and are making sure that your SEO Company is supplying rss linking capabilities to the purchase. Then, to buy backlinks becomes probably a very savvy SEO technique you can count on. There is a heavy and mixed emotions about the theory of Giggle deleting a web-site if your caught. However, if your cautious and are making sure that your SEO Company is supplying rss linking capabilities to the purchase. Then, to buy backlinks becomes probably a very savvy SEO technique you can count on.

]]> Comment on URLQuiz #1: To .WWW or not to .WWW? by Jeff Rivett http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/19/urlquiz-1-www-or-non-www/#comment-133137 Jeff Rivett Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:31:14 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/19/urlquiz-1-www-or-non-www/#comment-133137 You use the word "deference" repeatedly in your text. I think you meant to say "dereference." Also, the link to the "Deference" article is broken. You use the word “deference” repeatedly in your text. I think you meant to say “dereference.” Also, the link to the “Deference” article is broken.

]]> Comment on Why URL design matters in email by Phillip Hershkowitz http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/03/30/why-url-design-matters-in-email/#comment-132454 Phillip Hershkowitz Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:52:30 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/04/01/why-url-design-matters-in-email/#comment-132454 Redirects are the worst. Which would you trust more: http://gofrontrow.com/info or http://gofrontrow.silly-email-delivery-company.com/sdfghk2457y2rfhid ugh Redirects are the worst. Which would you trust more:

http://gofrontrow.com/info

or

http://gofrontrow.silly-email-delivery-company.com/sdfghk2457y2rfhid

ugh

]]> Comment on PayPal’s New API: So Close, Yet So Far by Mike Schinkel http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/16/paypals-new-name-value-pair-api/#comment-124814 Mike Schinkel Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:48:49 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/16/paypals-new-name-value-pair-api/#comment-124814 As far as I'm concerned SOAP is a complete nightmare and yes, you are correct if the server goes down it's the same problem. That is unless you use SOAP over store-and-forward mechanisms (like SMTP) instead of over HTTP but then what you are doing is a completely different type of web service. Let me repeat, SOAP is a nightmare. RESTful web services are the way to go. If you need high-availability, use Amazon EC2 or something similar. As far as I’m concerned SOAP is a complete nightmare and yes, you are correct if the server goes down it’s the same problem. That is unless you use SOAP over store-and-forward mechanisms (like SMTP) instead of over HTTP but then what you are doing is a completely different type of web service.

Let me repeat, SOAP is a nightmare. RESTful web services are the way to go. If you need high-availability, use Amazon EC2 or something similar.

]]> Comment on PayPal’s New API: So Close, Yet So Far by Dinakar http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/16/paypals-new-name-value-pair-api/#comment-124807 Dinakar Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:38:51 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/16/paypals-new-name-value-pair-api/#comment-124807 I am using NVP over SOAP for my website. my manager says SOAP is better because in NVP, if the server goes down, it will be a problem. But, isnt it a problem either way? if the server goes down, the webservice (i.e., even using SOAP API) also goes down with it ....am I correct? I am using NVP over SOAP for my website. my manager says SOAP is better because in NVP, if the server goes down, it will be a problem. But, isnt it a problem either way? if the server goes down, the webservice (i.e., even using SOAP API) also goes down with it ….am I correct?

]]> Comment on Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0 by Miami Houses, Atlanta houses http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/11/proposing-uri-templates-for-webforms-2/#comment-123208 Miami Houses, Atlanta houses Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:37:42 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/11/proposing-uri-templates-for-webforms-20-2/#comment-123208 It can theoretically be implemented using Javascript but that requires 1.) that the users knows how to implement using Javascript and 2.) that the environment being uses support Javascript (i.e. that it has not been disallowed for security reasons.) By trhe same token, things like It can theoretically be implemented using Javascript but that requires 1.) that the users knows how to implement using Javascript and 2.) that the environment being uses support Javascript (i.e. that it has not been disallowed for security reasons.) By trhe same token, things like

]]> Comment on URLQuiz #2: URL Equivalence and Cachability by Dan Gayle http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/03/01/urlquiz-2-url-equivalence-and-cachability/#comment-116998 Dan Gayle Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:51:10 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/03/01/urlquiz-2-url-equivalence-and-cachability/#comment-116998 Did you ever publish the results from this? I'm curious to see what the answer is. Did you ever publish the results from this? I’m curious to see what the answer is.

]]> Comment on Seeing things the way in which one wants them to be (not the way they are) by Timothy (TRiG) http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/05/19/seeing-things-the-way-in-which-one-wants-them-to-be-not-the-way-they-are/#comment-116951 Timothy (TRiG) Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:56:02 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/05/19/seeing-things-the-way-in-which-one-wants-them-to-be-not-the-way-they-are/#comment-116951 A note on Amazon URLs. There's a site affiliated to Amazon called books-by-isbn,com. You can visit books-by-isbn.com/ and see details on the book. The ISBN may be entered with or without hyphens separating the groups of digits (any hyphens are ignored, and their position need not conform to the logical structure of the ISBN), and may be entered in thirteen-digit or in ten-digit form. It's quite neat. TRiG. A note on Amazon URLs. There’s a site affiliated to Amazon called books-by-isbn,com. You can visit books-by-isbn.com/ and see details on the book. The ISBN may be entered with or without hyphens separating the groups of digits (any hyphens are ignored, and their position need not conform to the logical structure of the ISBN), and may be entered in thirteen-digit or in ten-digit form. It’s quite neat.

TRiG.

]]> Comment on Help Expose the URLs that Suck! by Ben Francis http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/17/expose-urls-that-suck/#comment-113966 Ben Francis Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:46:05 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/17/expose-urls-that-suck/#comment-113966 Namespaces ought to be included in this initiative, too. Namespaces are hierarchical organizations of programming code. For example, Microsoft has a namespace called "System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebParts.WebPart". Let's count. "Web" is stated FOUR times and "Part" appears twice. I guess System.Web.Parts would have been too easy. If they had to keep the hierarchy, then at least go with "System.Web.UI.Controls.Parts" -- Parts that are Web User Interface Controls. Simple. Elegant. Beautiful. Namespaces ought to be included in this initiative, too. Namespaces are hierarchical organizations of programming code. For example, Microsoft has a namespace called “System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebParts.WebPart”.

Let’s count. “Web” is stated FOUR times and “Part” appears twice. I guess System.Web.Parts would have been too easy.

If they had to keep the hierarchy, then at least go with “System.Web.UI.Controls.Parts” — Parts that are Web User Interface Controls.

Simple. Elegant. Beautiful.

]]> Comment on Use rel=”spam” to Fight Comment Spam? by Robert http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/08/rel-spam-to-fight-comment-spam/#comment-113689 Robert Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:27:14 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/08/rel-spam-to-fight-comment-spam/#comment-113689 And all you do is create a list of your competitors and mark them all as spam? I don't thing anyone should ever be able to negatively affect another website no matter the reason. No matter what someone will find a way to make it work for all the wrong reasons. And all you do is create a list of your competitors and mark them all as spam? I don’t thing anyone should ever be able to negatively affect another website no matter the reason. No matter what someone will find a way to make it work for all the wrong reasons.

]]> Comment on Why SnipURL’s API is Unsafe a.k.a. How NOT to design your Web API by Jack the Snipper http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2008/01/26/snipurls-unsafe-api/#comment-92989 Jack the Snipper Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:10:29 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2008/01/26/snipurls-unsafe-api/#comment-92989 Wow. I'm not really sure what I was looking for when I stumbled upon your post, but this was interesting. You are probably taking the standard beyond its intent and interpretation. By that, I'm only speaking to your assertion that adding an entry in a database causes the use of GET to stray from the standard. As a user, following, or GETting, that URL causes no harm that could even be construed as unsafe, by the standard's definition, for you. That spec is funny anyway because it basically implies that users accept obligations via POSTs. By what appears to be your definition, every search form that doesn't specify a method would be unsafe if the developer of that form made any attempt to save given search parameters for their own analysis. The very fact that SnipURL retaining an index to match what you provide them to what they provide you caused you to broadcast your overinterpretation of a standard to the world is hilarious! What action, in terms of adding an index entry into their database, might have an unexpected significance to you or others? Their use of get with an underlying database entry on their end does not fall outside of the standard. You are a standarista. Wow. I’m not really sure what I was looking for when I stumbled upon your post, but this was interesting. You are probably taking the standard beyond its intent and interpretation. By that, I’m only speaking to your assertion that adding an entry in a database causes the use of GET to stray from the standard. As a user, following, or GETting, that URL causes no harm that could even be construed as unsafe, by the standard’s definition, for you. That spec is funny anyway because it basically implies that users accept obligations via POSTs.

By what appears to be your definition, every search form that doesn’t specify a method would be unsafe if the developer of that form made any attempt to save given search parameters for their own analysis. The very fact that SnipURL retaining an index to match what you provide them to what they provide you caused you to broadcast your overinterpretation of a standard to the world is hilarious!

What action, in terms of adding an index entry into their database, might have an unexpected significance to you or others? Their use of get with an underlying database entry on their end does not fall outside of the standard. You are a standarista.

]]> Comment on Which is Worst: the URL for IE7 Add-ons, Firefox Extensions, or Greasemonkey? by Morbus http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/02/which-url-is-worst-ie7-add-ons-firefox-extensions-greasemonkey/#comment-90965 Morbus Thu, 29 May 2008 20:21:47 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/02/which-url-is-worst-ie7-add-ons-firefox-extensions-greasemonkey/#comment-90965 Too late, too late, but firefox's addons site is called AMO for something: addons.mozilla.org Remember AMO, remember it all. Too late, too late, but firefox’s addons site is called AMO for something:

addons.mozilla.org

Remember AMO, remember it all.

]]> Comment on Proposing HTTP Request Forwarding by chary http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/03/08/http-request-forwarding/#comment-90039 chary Fri, 23 May 2008 09:05:03 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/03/08/http-request-forwarding/#comment-90039 http://wiki.welldesignedurls.org/URL_Interfaces Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING, expecting T_OLD_FUNCTION or T_FUNCTION or T_VAR or '}' in /home/welldesi/public_html/wiki/includes/Exception.php on line 114 http://wiki.welldesignedurls.org/URL_Interfaces

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING, expecting T_OLD_FUNCTION or T_FUNCTION or T_VAR or ‘}’ in /home/welldesi/public_html/wiki/includes/Exception.php on line 114

]]> Comment on URLQuiz #1: To .WWW or not to .WWW? by The Great Dub-Dub-Dub Debate | Developer Home http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/19/urlquiz-1-www-or-non-www/#comment-89955 The Great Dub-Dub-Dub Debate | Developer Home Thu, 22 May 2008 22:14:30 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/19/urlquiz-1-www-or-non-www/#comment-89955 [...] that, it’s largely a matter of taste, though you could make a case that user-centered URL design should rule the day. If we’re dropping the www prefix, why stop there? Why not drop the [...] [...] that, it&#8217;s largely a matter of taste, though you could make a case that user-centered URL design should rule the day. If we&#8217;re dropping the www prefix, why stop there? Why not drop the [...]

]]> Comment on URLQuiz #1: To .WWW or not to .WWW? by Johannes Rössel http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/19/urlquiz-1-www-or-non-www/#comment-83372 Johannes Rössel Thu, 01 May 2008 12:03:37 +0000 http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/02/19/urlquiz-1-www-or-non-www/#comment-83372 As for my site the default configuration was that www and non-www pointed to the same content. After a few days the site was on I noticed that some search engines indexed the www variant, some the non-www variant and iirc one even treated both differently and yielded results with and without the www. I decided pretty early (so to not break many links, if there ever were any ...) to get rid of the www form and installed a redirect from www. to the non-www form (unfortunately only for the root, so no deep links were considered. However I never got around thinking about how I might do that :). I also noticed that I almost never type the www anymore, anyway. Except for a few sites I know where I get nothing without the www and they constantly annoy me. It's also not nice to the user to issue 404s in that case, imho. As for my site the default configuration was that www and non-www pointed to the same content. After a few days the site was on I noticed that some search engines indexed the www variant, some the non-www variant and iirc one even treated both differently and yielded results with and without the www. I decided pretty early (so to not break many links, if there ever were any …) to get rid of the www form and installed a redirect from www. to the non-www form (unfortunately only for the root, so no deep links were considered. However I never got around thinking about how I might do that :).

I also noticed that I almost never type the www anymore, anyway. Except for a few sites I know where I get nothing without the www and they constantly annoy me. It’s also not nice to the user to issue 404s in that case, imho.

]]>