Mailing List Archive

"Happy-melon" <happy-melon@live.com> wrote:

> We need to think a little bit outside the box, here; this domain should
> really be available, and make sense to use, for *all* WMF sites.
> http://www.wm.org is only occupied by a websquatter at the moment, AFAICT; I
> think a schema like http://wm.org/<wiki_code>/<article_title> or
> http://wm.org/<wiki_code>/?oldid=<oldid> would be cleanest. For enwiki it
> would be http://wm.org/enwiki/Foo; the worst-case scenario is AFAIK
> http://wm.org/mediawikiwiki/Foo; still only 28 characters plus the title.
> Use one of the qqx reserved codes for stuff like copyright, and you have a
> complete service.
> [...]

To think outside the box would be to apply for a URN scheme
and have popular browsers implement it (like "wp:" in Kon-
queror for example). It cannot get cleaner than that, and we
would not have to worry about operations issues either :-).

Tim


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim@tim-landscheidt.de>wrote:

> "Happy-melon" <happy-melon@live.com> wrote:
>
> > We need to think a little bit outside the box, here; this domain should
> > really be available, and make sense to use, for *all* WMF sites.
> > http://www.wm.org is only occupied by a websquatter at the moment,
> AFAICT; I
> > think a schema like http://wm.org/<wiki_code>/<article_title> or
> > http://wm.org/<wiki_code>/?oldid=<oldid> would be cleanest. For enwiki
> it
> > would be http://wm.org/enwiki/Foo; the worst-case scenario is AFAIK
> > http://wm.org/mediawikiwiki/Foo; still only 28 characters plus the
> title.
> > Use one of the qqx reserved codes for stuff like copyright, and you have
> a
> > complete service.
> > [...]
>
> To think outside the box would be to apply for a URN scheme
> and have popular browsers implement it (like "wp:" in Kon-
> queror for example). It cannot get cleaner than that, and we
> would not have to worry about operations issues either :-).
>
> Tim


Even better, you could have the most popular search engines rank many
Wikipedia articles as the first result for their titles and have the most
popular browsers automatically search for whatever keywords you type into
the address bar. (Astute readers will note this is already the case). Of
course, this doesn't get around the CC URL license terms (neither does the
URI solution, AFAICT), but it points out the sillyness in requiring a URL in
the first place.

In my opinion the requirement that you link to the CC license is simply to
raise awareness of CC itself and has nothing to do with usability. Finding
the source and stable copy of the content you are looking at is trivial, and
thus so is finding its license. This true with only keywords and without
URLs/URIs.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l