3 ms·

I don't know if I'm reading this right, but it sounds like the article takes "A cool URL doesnt change" to mean "Expect that URLs are forever" - where I take it

I don't know if I'm reading this right, but it sounds like the article takes "A cool URL doesnt change" to mean "Expect that URLs are forever" - where I take it to mean "To be cool - dont change your URLs". My point is - I expect all URLs to rot or change. But you're still cool for keeping your URLs stable while it's in your power. Reddit permalinks disappearing is is the very reason for the phrase, not proof that it's wrong

oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
Yeah, keeping your own URLs static is cool, but what's really cool is an automated check for broken links and a policy not to link to brittle sites.
robobro 3y ago
> Reddit permalinks disappearing is is the very reason for the phrase, not proof that it's wrong Cool URIs don't change was written in 1998 and Reddit was launched in 2005...?
- notRobot 3y ago
  I assume they mean not the reddit practice specifically but of the same link rot phenomenon that takes place across the web.
JdeBP 3y ago
The article is using this phrase per https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI , which is nothing to do with Reddit and certainly was not inspired by it. The point M. Siebenmann is clearly making is that a quarter of a century's hindsight shows a whole bunch of holes in the W3C's argument, with the recent Reddit events being simply one more counterexample in a long list of counterexamples.
- basch 3y ago
  The phrase is being used in a “cool kids don’t do drugs” or “only you can prevent forest fires” sort of way. If a URL changes, it isn’t “cool” it’s now “uncool.” It’s an oxymoron to say cool urls do change.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  What "holes" does this show in W3C's argument? I would say that this style doc would respect the technical choices of both twitter and reddit since even though the rules of access changed, the urls themselves didn't. From that document: > At W3C we divide the site into "Team access", "Member access" and "Public access". It sounds good, but of course documents start off as team ideas, are discussed with members, and then go public. A shame indeed if every time some document is opened to wider discussion all the old links to it fail! We are switching to a simple date code now. Thus the correct choice in URL design was indeed made as (AFAIK) no links need to be updated even though the rules for who is allowed to access the content at that url changed. This question of URL design is orthogonal to any debate about the reasons and justifications for restricting access to content that was previously public.
skywhopper 3y ago
Agreed. The corollary being that URLs that do change are usually because of poor stewardship on behalf of some responsible party: Reddit and Twitter are good examples of that.

oneeyedpigeon 3y ago

Yeah, keeping your own URLs static is cool, but what's really cool is an automated check for broken links and a policy not to link to brittle sites.

robobro 3y ago

> Reddit permalinks disappearing is is the very reason for the phrase, not proof that it's wrong Cool URIs don't change was written in 1998 and Reddit was launched in 2005...?

notRobot 3y ago
I assume they mean not the reddit practice specifically but of the same link rot phenomenon that takes place across the web.

JdeBP 3y ago

The article is using this phrase per https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI , which is nothing to do with Reddit and certainly was not inspired by it. The point M. Siebenmann is clearly making is that a quarter of a century's hindsight shows a whole bunch of holes in the W3C's argument, with the recent Reddit events being simply one more counterexample in a long list of counterexamples.

basch 3y ago
The phrase is being used in a “cool kids don’t do drugs” or “only you can prevent forest fires” sort of way. If a URL changes, it isn’t “cool” it’s now “uncool.” It’s an oxymoron to say cool urls do change.
shkkmo 3y ago
What "holes" does this show in W3C's argument? I would say that this style doc would respect the technical choices of both twitter and reddit since even though the rules of access changed, the urls themselves didn't. From that document: > At W3C we divide the site into "Team access", "Member access" and "Public access". It sounds good, but of course documents start off as team ideas, are discussed with members, and then go public. A shame indeed if every time some document is opened to wider discussion all the old links to it fail! We are switching to a simple date code now. Thus the correct choice in URL design was indeed made as (AFAIK) no links need to be updated even though the rules for who is allowed to access the content at that url changed. This question of URL design is orthogonal to any debate about the reasons and justifications for restricting access to content that was previously public.

skywhopper 3y ago

Agreed. The corollary being that URLs that do change are usually because of poor stewardship on behalf of some responsible party: Reddit and Twitter are good examples of that.