new{/_}

Lucas Gonze lgonze at panix.com
Fri Dec 5 15:06:30 PST 2003


On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 17:54 America/New_York, Bill Humphries wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2003, at 1:26 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>
>> Which is better:
>>
>> http://example.com/new/user
>> http://example.com/new/journal
>> http://example.com/new/entry
>
> I like that one because it makes more sense as a URL, and registering 
> new things becomes:
>
> http://example.com/new/feed
> http://example.com/new/trackback

I think that /new/feed is better than new_feed.  Don't know if it's 
better than /newfeed.  I could do both, but then I'll have two copies 
of the URL list to maintain, which will create bugs.

> ...
>
>> http://example.com/newuser
>> http://example.com/newjournal
>> http://example.com/newentry
>
> You can publish #1 and rewrite to #3 or 
> http://example.com/new?object=foo through mod_rewrite.

Yeah, actually I have my head deep in mod_rewrite right now.  Been 
reading whatever I can find on friendly URLs, taxonomy, and whatnot.  
The design principle I decided on was to keep the hierarchy as shallow 
as possible.

>
>> I'm inclined to say #3, because packers prefer big collections of 
>> unique words (newuser) to small collections of reusable words 
>> (new/user).
>
> What do you mean by "packer"?

People who learn by memorizing facts instead of by absorbing 
principles.  Packers prefer tools like VB with a big set of 
single-purpose API calls over tools like lisp with a tiny set of 
powerful principles.  Google "mappers vs. packers."

When people talk about "easy", what they mean is often whether they can 
get by with memorization, or whether they'll have to understand 
something new.  That's my working theory for designing URLs, anyway.

Think about how domain names are all clustered into that tiny little 
*.com space, rather than spread out over an unlimited set of top level 
domains, which would be *.*.  People prefer joeseats.com to joes.eats.








More information about the FoRK mailing list