From: Adam Twardoch (list.adam@twardoch.com)
Date: Fri Mar 13 2009 - 12:15:55 CST
John Burger wrote:
> then it would be very difficult to reliably write them down and enter
> them later.
Of course, that is a good question. Is machine-readable code (which a
URL actually is) always required to be human-readable? The "tiny" URLs
are rarely really human-readable, even if just the plain English letters
and digits are used. It's a bit like those software serial numbers: it's
still easy to confuse 1 with l, 0 with O, or 8 with B — and there is no
human context to make sense out of it.
When it comes to writing down and typing later, this:
http://new.myfonts.com/person/hudson/john/
is still much better than this:
http://tinyurl.com/cdogd4
or this:
http://✩.ws/8l
I think human-readable URLs don't need to be tiny, and tiny URLs don't
need to be human-readable. They follow two different goals but sure,
they can co-exist.
A.
-- Adam Twardoch | Language Typography Unicode Fonts OpenType | twardoch.com | silesian.com | fontlab.net I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. (Hunter S. Thompson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 13 2009 - 12:18:30 CST