[uf-discuss] URLs in hrefs

Michael Smethurst Michael.Smethurst at bbc.co.uk
Mon Apr 23 02:50:24 PDT 2007

OK, ok, ok... My mistake

I'd assumed that uf parsers couldn't handle non full path urls... Silly on
my part

In mitigation:
- I'm not sure the uf wiki makes this clear
- All the examples on the wiki seem to use full path urls
- By default using url_for on RoR gives full path urls (check twitter).
Everything else about RoR feels designed and there for a reason so I assumed
that this was
- I've spent quite a bit of time mashing up musicbrainz and wikipedia and
got frustrated at having to fill out the wikipedia full path urls myself -
I'm lazy
- Against my better judgement I spend a lot of time in the company of rest
apis. I've yet to come across one that doesn't use full path urls. In my
mind ufs are apis so...
- I had read the http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt doc many months
previously and again before posting

I'm sure there are caveats for most of the above and I apologise for not
spending my weekend fully researching them all

But the question remains:
Microformats aside, if I'm making a new website from scratch (no legacy
code/markup) and I want to encourage others to hack, mashup, interwingle it
with other data is it best to use /radio4 or http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4

On 20/4/07 13:39, "David Janes" <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/07, Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst at bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Afternoon all
>> Standard practice at the beeb has always been to use link urls relative to
>> the root:
>> href="/radio4/today"
>> Clearly these are of little use in a microformat (or any attempt to use html
>> as an api)
>> So my question is - are there any problems we should be aware of in
>> switching to full path urls? One or 2 developers have mentioned the
>> possibility of creating unnecessary connections but no-one seems sure
>> I've googled around but all the absolute/relative url discussions are web
>> tutorials from 1995 so thought u might be a good port of call...
> The reason that there has been little discussion is that the rules for
> dealing with this are well understood and settled. This document [1]
> will give you everything you need -- written in 1995.
> Regards, etc...
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list