互联网与文化w3.org编辑精选
酷 URI 不会改变（1998）
Cool URIs Don't Change (1998)
2011 — 2021，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 W3C 于 1998 年发布的经典短文，主张 URI 应该永久不变：网站改版、技术升级都不应让旧链接失效。文章给出了设计 URI 的具体建议，如使用不依赖技术、目录结构和主题的简洁路径，并强调维护 URI 稳定性是网站管理者的责任。
为什么经久不衰：链接失效（link rot）至今仍是互联网的顽疾，这篇奠基性文章提出的 URI 设计原则历经二十多年仍被反复讨论和实践，是理解 Web 持久性问题的必读文献。
HN 评论精选
批评文中'URI 不应包含主题'的建议，认为人类可读的主题信息比抽象的永久性更重要，且文章自身的 URI 就违反了它的原则。
核心观点（不要改 URI）没问题，但我完全不同意文中关于命名取舍的建议，尤其是'该省略什么'一节。不写主题？理由站不住脚——'词语含义可能变化'又如何？人们早就习惯了旧书里过时的说法。更让人困惑的是把含义全部剔除的 URI，毕竟整篇文章讨论的正是 URI 的人类可读性。去掉主题就只剩日期、数字和无意义的杂讯。如果我来设计公司网站，肯定会把产品页放在 /products 下。顺带一提，这篇文章自己的 URI 就很糟糕：'Provider/Style/URI'——谁能看出页面讲什么？而且按它自己的规则，'URI'这个词如今几乎没人用了，大家都说 URL，所以这篇文章的 URI 早已违反了自己的原则。
joosters查看英文原文
While the main concept (Don't change your URIs!) is good, I can't agree at all with their advice on picking names, in particular the 'what to leave out' section. No subject or topic? The justification for this is flimsy at best - 'the meaning of the words might change' So what? People cope with this all the time in other media, e.g. old books. It's not too confusing. What's more confusing is a URI that has all the meaning removed, after all this whole URI discussion is about the human appearance of URIs. Take out the topics and you are just left with dates, numbers and unspecific cruft. If I was designing a company's website, I'm sure as hell going to put the product pages under '/products'. FWIW, the document's own URI is terrible: 'https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI' - who could have any idea what the page is about from that? And what if the meaning of the word 'Provider' or 'Style' changes in x years from now? :) You could argue that the meaning/usage of 'URI' has already changed, because practically no-one uses that term any more. Everyone knows about URLs, not URIs. Not many people could tell you what the difference was. So the article's URI has already failed by its own rules.
解释为什么这条经典建议很少被遵守：工具更迭和搜索引擎让 URI 稳定性变得不再必要，多数内容本就是一次性的。
这是关于 Web 的经典奠基文献之一，但很少被真正遵循。工具的使用主导了 URI 的形态：工具既被用来委派工作，也让人免于手工打造 URI，而频繁更换工具往往会毁掉过去的 URI。此外搜索引擎的普及降低了 URI 稳定性对人的重要性，书签不再是按主题找回页面的唯一途径。有些内容本来就是一次性的、会过期的，或只对有限受众有意义。普通人和普通公司并不想永远有意识地充当标识符管理机构。
niftich查看英文原文
This is one of those classic, foundational documents about the Web. But it's rarely followed. Tool use has come to dominate the form that URIs take; tools are used both for delegation and to absolve humans from crafting URIs by hand. Switching tools frequently ruins past URIs. Additionally, widespread use of web search engines has made URI stability less relevant for humans. Bookmarks are not the only solution to find a leaf page by topic again. A dedicated person might find that archiving websites may have preserved content at their old URIs. Some of this is allowed to happen because the content is ultimately disposable, expires, or possesses limited relevance outside of a limited audience. Some company websites are little more than brochures. Documents and applications that are relevant within organizations can be communicated out of band. Ordinary people and ordinary companies don't want to be consciously running identifier authorities forever.
指出域名年费和续费疏忽是 URL 腐烂的重要根源，提出一次性买断加镜像机制的大胆设想。
反问一句：为什么控制域名必须按年付费？文章开头说'除了破产，没有什么能阻止域名持有者保住域名'。事实证明破产确实是 URL 腐烂的重要来源，但主动或疏于续费（无论出于财务还是精力原因）同样是，尤其对个人而言——十年后热情消退了。随着 TLD 增多，域名日益充裕，为什么不改为一次性买断的模式，之后能否继续持有取决于是否维持一定比例的已发布资源，失败则触发某种可撤销机制来提供旧 URL 的镜像服务？
mapgrep查看英文原文
Rhetorical question: Why must we charge annually to control domains? Should we stop doing this in the name of greater URL stability? The article states early on, “Except insolvency, nothing prevents the domain name owner from keeping the name.” As it turns out, insolvency is a pretty significant source of URL rot, but also so is non renewal of domains by choice or by apathy, whether for financial or mere personal energy reasons (“who is my registrar again? Where do I go to renew?”) especially by individuals. You start a project and ten years later your interest has waned. Domains are an increasingly abundant resource as TLDs proliferate. Why not default to a model where you pay once up front for the domain, and thereafter continued control is contingent on maintaining a certain percentage of previously published resources, and if you fail at that some revocable mechanism kicks in that serves mirrored versions of your old urls. Funding of these mirrors comes from the up front domain fees. Design of the mechanism is left as an exercise for the reader :-)
以真实案例证明 URI 永久性可以做到，但需要严格的维护纪律，且老式技术栈反而更易维护。
我曾合作过的一家公司，Apache 配置文件里有一千多条重定向。我接手时网站已 20 岁，如今 26 年了，据我所知他们仍坚持这一原则，还跑在老旧的 LAMP 架构上。这事做得到，但前提是：URL 维护纪律 > 站点 URL 数量。（没有 CMS，每个页面都是手写 PHP。说实话，维护起来比今天的 SPA 框架简单多了。）
SavantIdiot查看英文原文
There are over a thousand redirects in an Apache config file for a company I contracted with. The website was 20 when I worked there, it is now 26 years and AFAIK they still stick to this principle. And it's still a creaky old LAMP stack. It can be done, but only if this equation holds: URL indexing discipline > number of site URLs (There was no CMS, every page was hand-written PHP. And to be frank, maintenance was FAR simpler than the SPA frameworks I work with today.)
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选