TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Cool URIs don't change (1998)

297 点作者 benjaminjosephw大约 9 年前

23 条评论

Communitivity大约 9 年前
It is confusing to a lot of people, but they aren&#x27;t functionally interchangeable.<p>Basically you have Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), Uniform Resource Names (URNs), and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). You also have International Resource Identifiers (IRIs), which are URIs with rules allowing for international character sets in things like host names.<p>Every URN and URL is a URI. However, not every URI is a URN, or a URL.<p>A URN has a specific scheme (the front part of a URI before the :), but it does not contain instructions on how to access the identified resource. We humans might automatically map that to an access method in our head (e.g., digital object identifier URNs like doi:10.1000&#x2F;182, which we who have used DOIs know maps to <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dx.doi.org&#x2F;10.1000&#x2F;182" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;dx.doi.org&#x2F;10.1000&#x2F;182</a>), but the instruction isn&#x27;t in the URN.<p>A URL is not just an identifier but also an instruction for how to find and access the identified resource.<p>For example <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;example.org&#x2F;foo.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;example.org&#x2F;foo.html</a> says to access the web resource &#x2F;foo.html by using the HTTP protocol over TCP to connect to IP address which example.org resolves to, on port 80.<p>An example of URIs which are not URLs are the MIME content ids used to mark the boundaries within an email (cid scheme), e.g., cid:foo4%25foo1@bar.net.<p>You can get more information at: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc2392" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc2392</a>
评论 #11715230 未加载
makecheck大约 9 年前
A lot of missteps in the early days of web technologies have made stable URLs impractical, unfortunately.<p>One problem is that someone decided to include file name extensions. Maybe this happened naturally because web servers made it so easy to expose entire directory structures to the web. And yet, this continues to be used for lots of other things. It is so ridiculous that a &quot;.asp&quot; or &quot;.php&quot; or &quot;.cgi&quot; causes <i>every link, everywhere</i> to depend on your arbitrary implementation details!<p>Another problem is that many software stacks are just not using brains when it comes to what would make a useful URL. Years ago I was very frustrated working with an enterprise software company that wanted to sell us a bug-tracking system and they didn’t have simple things like &quot;server.net&#x2F;123456&quot; to access bug #123456; instead, the URL was something absolutely heinous that wouldn’t even fit on a single line (causing wrapping in E-mails and such).<p>Speaking of E-mail, I have received many E-mails over time that consisted of like TWELVE steps to instruct people on how to <i>reach</i> a file <i>on the web</i>. The entire <i>concept</i> of having a simple, descriptive and stable URL was completely lost on these people. It was always: 1. go to home page, 2. click here, ..., 11. click on annoying “content management system” with non-standard UI that generates unbookmarkable link, 12. access document. These utterly broken systems began to proliferate and it rapidly reached the point where most of the content that mattered (at least inside companies) was not <i>available</i> in any sane way so deep-linking to URLs became pointless.
评论 #11717500 未加载
评论 #11716625 未加载
zymhan大约 9 年前
&quot; There is nothing about HTTP which makes your URIs unstable. It is your organization. &quot;<p>I think this could be applied to more than just how companies manage URLs.<p>Also, I&#x27;m trying to find a post I recently read that talked about how calling URLs &quot;URI&quot;s is just confusing nowadays since almost everyone still only knows the term URL, and they&#x27;re functionally interchangeable.
评论 #11712833 未加载
评论 #11713348 未加载
pidg大约 9 年前
Another addition to their &#x27;Hall of Flame&#x27; might be the British Monarchy. A couple of weeks ago, they broke <i>every</i> existing URI when they moved from www.royal.gov.uk to www.royal.uk. Every URL from the old domain gets redirected to the root of the new site.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.co.uk&#x2F;search?q=site%3Aroyal.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.co.uk&#x2F;search?q=site%3Aroyal.gov.uk</a>
评论 #11715885 未加载
评论 #11715332 未加载
chias大约 9 年前
Interesting, the link as posted here violates the guidelines. Perhaps you meant to link to<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;Provider&#x2F;Style&#x2F;URI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;Provider&#x2F;Style&#x2F;URI</a><p>;)
评论 #11714781 未加载
评论 #11714929 未加载
seagreen大约 9 年前
This is a make-work trap for conscientious people.<p>If it&#x27;s more efficient for your business&#x2F;project to change your URIs when going through a website design, go ahead (with the knowledge that you&#x27;ll lose some traffic, etc.)<p>Seriously, there&#x27;s no reason to feel guilty over this. It&#x27;s not your fault, it&#x27;s the fault of a system that built two UIs into every website (the website&#x27;s HTML and the URL bar -- the second of which is supposed to be useful for browsing and navigation just like the first).<p>If W3C actually cared about links continuing to work, they would fix it at the technical level by promoting content-addressable links instead of trying to fix it at the social level (which will never work anyway, the diligent people that care about these things will always be just a drop in the bucket).
评论 #11714840 未加载
评论 #11716180 未加载
评论 #11714748 未加载
评论 #11716797 未加载
alistairjcbrown大约 9 年前
I remember Jeremy Keith talking about this at dConstruct conference; he put a bet on Long Bets that the URI of the bet wouldn&#x27;t change [0]<p>[0] - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;longbets.org&#x2F;601&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;longbets.org&#x2F;601&#x2F;</a>
评论 #11713054 未加载
评论 #11712716 未加载
评论 #11712767 未加载
评论 #11713149 未加载
wtbob大约 9 年前
On a related note, URIs shouldn&#x27;t end in extensions (use content negotiation!), content should be readable without executing code (no JavaScript necessary), content should be available in multiple languages (use content negotiation!), and RESTful interface should offer a simple forms-based interface for testing, &amp;c.
评论 #11713215 未加载
评论 #11713498 未加载
评论 #11719050 未加载
评论 #11713067 未加载
评论 #11715400 未加载
评论 #11714083 未加载
zeveb大约 9 年前
I was recently digging through my old blog&#x27;s archives, and it was appalling how many URLs from the early 2000s have completely disappeared, despite the fact that the sites which served them remain — and gratifying when I was able to reload some fringe resource from 1998 or 2003.<p>The Web is about webs of durable readable content, not about ephemeral walled-garden apps.
评论 #11715173 未加载
评论 #11715071 未加载
评论 #11724852 未加载
hyperpape大约 9 年前
One downside of this: I now feel like I can&#x27;t create a proper place to keep my writing or other ideas until I carefully think of a URL scheme that I can maintain for eternity.
评论 #11713082 未加载
评论 #11713072 未加载
评论 #11716441 未加载
brightshiny大约 9 年前
There&#x27;s RFC 4151 to keep in mind, TagURI, a scheme for URIs that is independent of URL (but can use it too). One reason to use it would be to mark a page as being the same resource even though the domain or URL had changed.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.taguri.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.taguri.org&#x2F;</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tag_URI_scheme" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tag_URI_scheme</a><p>I wrote a library for it in Ruby which is how I know about it.
评论 #11716391 未加载
tremon大约 9 年前
I wonder if the footnote was also written in 1998:<p><i>Historical note: At the end of the 20th century when this was written, &quot;cool&quot; was an epithet of approval particularly among young, indicating trendiness, quality, or appropriateness.</i>
评论 #11714370 未加载
评论 #11715596 未加载
thudson大约 9 年前
Cool URLs still work in OmniWeb on a NeXT with a decades old bookmarks file: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;osr&#x2F;17082625625&#x2F;lightbox" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;osr&#x2F;17082625625&#x2F;lightbox</a><p>The Mondo 2000 interview bookmarks, not so much.
alpb大约 9 年前
The example URL they list from w3.org website (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;1998&#x2F;12&#x2F;01&#x2F;chairs" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;1998&#x2F;12&#x2F;01&#x2F;chairs</a>) is now broken. Great deal of irony.
评论 #11715076 未加载
kerrsclyde大约 9 年前
What about case sensitivity? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;provider&#x2F;style&#x2F;uri" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;provider&#x2F;style&#x2F;uri</a> doesn&#x27;t work.
评论 #11713768 未加载
prsutherland大约 9 年前
Pre-DMCA. If this gets an update, TBL should add legal reasons and law enforcement as a reason for URI change.
评论 #11714257 未加载
nommm-nommm大约 9 年前
Shouldn&#x27;t there be some tradeoffs?<p>Say I sign up with service x with the name y. My URL is www.x.com&#x2F;users&#x2F;y. Years later I delete my account. Someone else signs up with the name y. Now www.x.com&#x2F;users&#x2F;y goes to someone else&#x27;s resources. The old URL is broken.<p>The only way to prevent this is either give the user a url (that they will want to share) that is not meaningful or disallow anybody to sign up with a name that was ever in use and names are a resource that is very limited.<p>Neither seems ideal. I do agree on principal that URLS shouldn&#x27;t change, though.<p>Hotmail actually has this problem, or at least they used to. They delete accounts that are inactive for a long time and someone else can sign up with that name. The new person can get email addressed to the previous owner.
评论 #11716392 未加载
评论 #11714874 未加载
评论 #11714408 未加载
kazinator大约 9 年前
<i>&quot;Except insolvency, nothing prevents the domain name owner from keeping the name.&quot;</i><p>Ah, the halcyon days of the Internet&#x27;s adolescence.<p>This was before fiascos like Mike Rowe, of Canada, having his mikerowsoft.com taken away.
评论 #11715085 未加载
nathancahill大约 9 年前
At least one of their example URLs on the page still points (eventually) to the same content: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nsf.gov&#x2F;cgi-bin&#x2F;getpub?nsf9814" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nsf.gov&#x2F;cgi-bin&#x2F;getpub?nsf9814</a><p>Although they seem to have not learned anything, and are now using .jsp instead of .pl.
miseg大约 9 年前
It&#x27;s tough!<p>I have a custom PHP app that includes marketing pages.<p>I&#x27;d like to crowbar Wordpress into the server to serve the marketing pages instead, to make it easie to change text over time.<p>A .htaccess set of redirect rules may indeed work, but it&#x27;s hard work to keep all URLs working.
评论 #11713796 未加载
avar大约 9 年前
I wonder if TBL would have written the same article 10 years later when search engines had gotten much better.<p>It&#x27;s still an inconvenience when a URL moves, but before the likes of Google that used to be a huge inconvenience and it would often take tens of minutes to track down the new location, now it&#x27;s on the order of tens of seconds at most.
评论 #11712815 未加载
prashnts大约 9 年前
Oh well, Hall of fame #1 leads to a 404 for both links. So, I propose that it should be fair to call it (Hall of fame #1)².
评论 #11712785 未加载
nxzero大约 9 年前
Idea that something cool would stay cool forever sounds like oxymoron.<p>For example, Yahoo.com has remained the URI for Yahoo&#x27;s homepage and will continue to until it&#x27;s the 404 page. Yahoo.com is not cool.
评论 #11712735 未加载
评论 #11714049 未加载
评论 #11715575 未加载