Talk:Clean URL/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Clean URL. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
RESTful?
Clean URLs, RESTful URLs or user-friendly URLs ... Why RESTful? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the unusual capitalization comes from. "RESTful" is more-or-less defined in the representational state transfer (REST) article (which uses the same capitalization). --DavidCary (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Examples from Wikipedia?
Shouldn't we use examples from Wikipedia, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clean_URL for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_URL, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=clean+url for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/clean+url? Even /wiki/Uniform_Resource_Locator?action=edit is an improvement over the messy URL. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge or not?
Need to vote or only to work!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.91.148 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Article refs make this term unique to cited vendors (Wordpress
The term "slug" is not ubiquitous term. This spec: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#page-30 uses the term but its meaning is very different. It doesn't appear in a WWW Consortium spec. The concept of "clean" is subjective and not a bad one to use when referring to a URL that does not contain a query string. The term has no place in technical documentation because it's already defined and has an entirely different meaning.
A URL may or may not contain variables. Variables and their value are what make up a Query String. To the extent they help determine where a resource appears in search engine results has nothing to do with whether or not they're easy to read by a human. That is, a URL that's easy to read may get a better placement from a search engine that's less complex than, (as an example) Yahoo's search engine but it's the search engine that determines placement.
If there's a search engine that gives a better rating to a resource, solely because it's human readable, that engine should be cited as a reference.
As written (2 May 2014) the article appears to be a "shameless" advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.156.9 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)