4 ms·
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 certai
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWhat "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.