« November 09, 2002 | Main | November 12, 2002 »
November 11, 2002
URI Design at Yahoo!
Seems like Jon Udell has got lots of people are thinking about URI design right now. I posted something last week in response to Jon's post and now Jeremy Zawodny has done the same regarding Yahoo! Finance. I think that some of the changes that they're contemplating regarding XML are fascinating and much needed. Jeremy asks for an opinion on three different design options for Yahoo! Finance URLs:
The bulk of the argument boiled down to roughly something like this:
1. http://finance.yahoo.com/xp?YHOOOr...
2. http://finance.yahoo.com/x/p?YHOOOr...
3. http://finance.yahoo.com/x/p/YHOOThat's right. We spent a long, long time arguing about the difference between a slash ('/'), or question mark ('?'). And we argued passionately for our favorites.
Like any self-respecting academic, my answer is "it depends." Here's how I think it shakes out. If the only thing you're doing is quotes, then I'm not sure it matters a great deal which of these options. In general, I don't like using PATH information for arguments, but that's more style than anything. If you've got a more complicated set of features than just returning quotes, then I don't like any of these. I like
1. http://finance.yahoo.com/xp?q=YHOO&p2=X2&...&pn=Xn
OR
2. http://finance.yahoo.com/xp/YHOO?p1=X1&...&pn=Xn
The nice thing about (2) is that its eminently guessable and simple to remember but allows for the addition of parameters to change the default behavior.
In any event, I believe that the whole set up ought to be carefully documented and that document ought to be available online and, preferably in machine readable form. The problem with the "machine readable" part is that WSDL isn't up to this task (built for something else) and nothing else has emerged as a strong contender. Maybe Yahoo! has enough clout to take something like Paul Prescod's WRDL and make it a de facto standard?
01:32 PM | Recommend This | Print This
OpEd Irony
I found the lead OpEd piece in yesterday's Deseret News, entitled "Howling at the Moon," ironic. The piece is about the way conspiracy theories can come about and specifically about the various theories that NASA faked the moon landings. The piece begins:
It's easy to come up with a new conspiracy theory. Just think of an event or a big institution, add in a hated (at least by some) group of people and throw in a suspicious motive for good measure. Greed usually will do, but sometimes the need to cover up or save face works better. Mix it all liberally with large doses of "evidence." You can find this in a lot of convenient places. Generally it will be in the form of truth that easily can be manipulated to mean something else.
Slap it all together on a web site or a talk radio show or any other public forum and presto! Next thing you know, honest, intelligent people are scrambling to do what is nearly impossible — prove beyond a doubt that something didn't happen.
Americans are good at this. That's why so many people believe the United Nations is out to take over the world, the Oklahoma City bombing was really the work of federal agents and the Deseret News has purchased the Tribune.
I could add a few more things to their list.