Andrew Thompson wrote:
John W. Kennedy wrote:
It is can be better to use
which was once part of the official URL standard. ..
Aaah yes, I knew there was a still better form of
URL representation, but had forgotten what it was,
so decided it better not to comment.
...It was deleted from
the standard for lack of use, but is still supported in some software.
I am not sure if this has been asked/answered before,
but do you know of any software that would recognise
the full form, but *not* the more abbreviated form I first
(The short form is an entire 4 *chars.* shorter, after all!)
Oh, and as a side comment. If *you* have control over the URL,
a 'short, stable URL' lacking in characters such as '-', '_', '.', ' ',
'CAPITALS' or other extraneous/confusing characters, is way
better than any scheme to try and protect them from wrap,
after the effect..
A 'good' URL - beats any/all efforts to fix a 'bad' one.
URLs that bother me:
If it ends with an extension that specifies the generating technology,
not the response type:
* http://someplace.com/showForm.jsp -- should probably be
* http://someplace.com/index.php -- injection attack anyone?
* whatever.asp, whatever.cgi, etc... -- you get the point
If it can become invalid for stupid reasons.
* http://www.mycompany.com/hr/John_Smith/benefits.html -- Well, John
Smith just quit, everyone has to update their bookmarks.
If it doesn't describe the resource.
* http://tinyurl.com/garbage -- don't get me started on tinyurl
If it contains the words geocities, myspace, anglefire, etc...
* Do you REALLY need an example :-)