• To: Chris Burdess <dog@b...>
• Subject: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:49:19 -0800
• Cc: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <a91d09ddd1e3adef1ca53a1b442b381f@b...>
• References: <B8415163A689094689542C617ECA036650F585@I...><a91d09ddd1e3adef1ca53a1b442b381f@b...>
• Sender: Tim.Bray@S...

On Dec 9, 2005, at 6:49 AM, Chris Burdess wrote:

> Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>> (1) The above URLs (I believe) are expressing the same thing -  
>> they are identifying the same resource.  So which is "better"?
>
> For practical purposes, the first is better, since there is no  
> limit to the number of name components. In the second example, you  
> can have at most 2 or 3 parameters before search engines give up  
> and stop indexing your resource.

Independent of which is better, this hypothesis about search engines  
is not supported by any evidence I know. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@g...>

• References:
  • Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: Chris Burdess <dog@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Next by Date: Re: how to use xml:base and relative URLs with SAX/Java?
• Previous by thread: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Next by thread: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread