nicer url thoughts?

I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
like ?PG=2&PIC=5

I'm thinking /2/5 is not going to work because I have folders named /2
in some cases so maybe it's more like /2~5 but that's just weird using
funny characters or /pg2#5

You'd think I could come up with something decent but I'm just not sure.
Any suggestions?


For now my links look like this:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=0_gallery/0-Photo-U pdate/2007-06-24&PG=1&PIC=1
I've got it down to this (not uploaded yet):
http://www.edgehill.net/1/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG =1&PIC=1
and soon I'll have this:
http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG=1 &PIC=1

Also, is there any reason not to chop off the www:
http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24

Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07

So the final urls would look like:
http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/6-24-07/pg2#5
.... or whatever looks best on the page & pic numbers...

Thanks for your ideas,

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Paul Furman wrote:
> I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
> with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
> like ?PG=2&PIC=5
>
> I'm thinking /2/5 is not going to work because I have folders named /2
> in some cases

You know, I can work around this so nevermind. I think /2/5 is the most
straightforward way to handle it unless someone disagrees

> so maybe it's more like /2~5 but that's just weird using
> funny characters or /pg2#5
>
> You'd think I could come up with something decent but I'm just not sure.
> Any suggestions?
>
>
> For now my links look like this:
> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=0_gallery/0-Photo-U pdate/2007-06-24&PG=1&PIC=1
>
> I've got it down to this (not uploaded yet):
> http://www.edgehill.net/1/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG =1&PIC=1
> and soon I'll have this:
> http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG=1 &PIC=1
>
> Also, is there any reason not to chop off the www:
> http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24
>
> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>
> So the final urls would look like:
> http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/6-24-07/pg2#5
> ... or whatever looks best on the page & pic numbers...
>
> Thanks for your ideas,
>


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Paul Furman wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
>> with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
>> like ?PG=2&PIC=5
>>
>> I'm thinking /2/5 is not going to work because I have folders named /2
>> in some cases
>
> You know, I can work around this so nevermind. I think /2/5 is the most
> straightforward way to handle it unless someone disagrees

Ack scratch that, it *IS* a problem I'm going to implement it as /pg1pc5
but if you got better ideas I can change that. Apparently # is a special
character for browsers.


>> so maybe it's more like /2~5 but that's just weird using funny
>> characters or /pg2#5
>>
>> You'd think I could come up with something decent but I'm just not
>> sure. Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>> For now my links look like this:
>> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=0_gallery/0-Photo-U pdate/2007-06-24&PG=1&PIC=1
>>
>> I've got it down to this (not uploaded yet):
>> http://www.edgehill.net/1/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG =1&PIC=1
>> and soon I'll have this:
>> http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG=1 &PIC=1
>>
>> Also, is there any reason not to chop off the www:
>> http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24
>>
>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>
>> So the final urls would look like:
>> http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/6-24-07/pg2#5
>> ... or whatever looks best on the page & pic numbers...
>>
>> Thanks for your ideas,
>>
>
>


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Paul Furman wrote:
> I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
> with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
> like ?PG=2&PIC=5

This will increase the load on your web server, IMHO it's better that search
engines gets more friendly to URLs than web sites to adjust due searchengines
has trouble of indexing pages correctly.

> I'm thinking /2/5 is not going to work because I have folders named /2
> in some cases so maybe it's more like /2~5 but that's just weird using
> funny characters or /pg2#5

Sure you could do that, or just add a character in front that you don't
usually use, as you use rewrite_mod, it handles reg expressions will.


Keep in mind you may get troubles if you use relative paths to images and
links on your own site.

--

//Aho

Re: nicer url thoughts?

J.O. Aho wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
>>with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
>>like ?PG=2&PIC=5
>
> This will increase the load on your web server, IMHO it's better that search
> engines gets more friendly to URLs than web sites to adjust due searchengines
> has trouble of indexing pages correctly.

Yes I already torture my poor server in other worse ways though :-) I
also want this to make the urls shorter for emailing links. I totally
agree the search engines are not reasonable about ignoring php content,
in fact they don't always ignore it but apparently it hurts a lot.

>>I'm thinking /2/5 is not going to work because I have folders named /2
>>in some cases so maybe it's more like /2~5 but that's just weird using
>>funny characters or /pg2#5
>
> Sure you could do that, or just add a character in front that you don't
> usually use, as you use rewrite_mod, it handles reg expressions will.

For now I'm thinking /pg2pc5 it could be /~2~5 but that's an awkward
character for people to type... maybe /p2~5 ...shortness is important to
my goals. Sometimes I will just give the page number so /pg2 /p2

> Keep in mind you may get troubles if you use relative paths to images and
> links on your own site.

Yep, I've been dealing with that already with the rewrite rules I've
implemented so far. It wasn't too bad and the nice thing is except for
that, all the old ugly urls will continue to function. What I had to
change was relative urls that didn't start at the root, I had everything
under /1 & the index.php loaded under /1 so I had left out the /1 on
many but those are almost all easily corrected in the php building or
html, just a few exceptions are broken hard coded links in the
annotation under some photos.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Paul Furman wrote:
> J.O. Aho wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
>>> with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
>>> like ?PG=2&PIC=5
>>
>> This will increase the load on your web server, IMHO it's better that
>> search
>> engines gets more friendly to URLs than web sites to adjust due
>> searchengines
>> has trouble of indexing pages correctly.
>
> Yes I already torture my poor server in other worse ways though :-) I
> also want this to make the urls shorter for emailing links. I totally
> agree the search engines are not reasonable about ignoring php content,
> in fact they don't always ignore it but apparently it hurts a lot.

Why not use tinyurl ?


>>> I'm thinking /2/5 is not going to work because I have folders named /2
>>> in some cases so maybe it's more like /2~5 but that's just weird using
>>> funny characters or /pg2#5
>>
>> Sure you could do that, or just add a character in front that you don't
>> usually use, as you use rewrite_mod, it handles reg expressions will.
>
> For now I'm thinking /pg2pc5 it could be /~2~5 but that's an awkward
> character for people to type... maybe /p2~5 ...shortness is important to
> my goals. Sometimes I will just give the page number so /pg2 /p2

No, ~ is a bad character to use, it's usually used to tell that the webserver
should look in the user directory for the pages.

page.php/q2/5

This way you could use the 'q' to tell that the following is just an argument
for the php script and not directories.


--

//Aho

Re: nicer url thoughts?

J.O. Aho wrote:

> Why not use tinyurl ?

I do, it's a pain... also people have trouble copying my long links.

> ~ is a bad character to use, it's usually used to tell that the webserver
> should look in the user directory for the pages.

OK thanks.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Yorkshire Pete wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2007 Paul Furman wrote in alt.html
>
>>>Why not use tinyurl ?
>>
>>I do, it's a pain... also people have trouble copying my long links.
>
> go get your own short url maker script.
> http://www.gentlesource.com/
>
> That's what's on my site. Even has a bookmarklet ror your toolbar like
> tinyurl. On my site it is "Pets's Bookmarklet". Drag it up and give it a test
> run.


For $20 that sounds nifty but I don't have mysql running on that domain
(yet). Neat idea though. It would be nice to be able to permalink short
urls to any page.

I've pretty much got this worked out now with the shorter dates, no www,
/pg2pc5 for page & pic number (maybe /p2pc5 ?) and a new top level for
favorites shortcuts but yeah I'm still gonna have some unruly urls.


will soon be:

and favorites can be displayed in shorcut folder like:
http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/07-20-07

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Paul Furman wrote:

> and soon I'll have this:
> http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG=1 &PIC=1

Try one of these:

http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?1.1
http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24+1.1
http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?1,1
http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24+1,1

> Also, is there any reason not to chop off the www:
> http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24

Drop it. "www." is evil.

> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07

Don't do that. YMD is good: it's unambiguous. MDY is a weird-ass, ambiguous
date format, used by a tiny proportion of the world's population.

Is "/photo-update" really needed?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 36 days, 15:22.]

Cryptography Challenge
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/24/crypto-challenge/

Re: nicer url thoughts?

On Jul 27, 4:47 am, Toby A Inkster
wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
> > and soon I'll have this:
> >http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?PG= 1&PIC=1
>
> Try one of these:
>
> http://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?1.1h ttp://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24+1.1ht tp://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24?1,1htt p://www.edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24+1,1
>
> > Also, is there any reason not to chop off the www:
> >http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24
>
> Drop it. "www." is evil.
>
> > Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
I collapse all my dates to 20070727 - eliminating the dashes and it is
ISO standard even!

>
> Don't do that. YMD is good: it's unambiguous. MDY is a weird-ass, ambiguous
> date format, used by a tiny proportion of the world's population.
>
> Is "/photo-update" really needed?
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
> [OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 36 days, 15:22.]
>
> Cryptography Challenge
> http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/24/crypto-challenge/

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>Also, is there any reason not to chop off the www:
>>http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2007-06-24
>
> Drop it. "www." is evil.

Thanks for confirmation. It looks good on a business card or in print
but otherwise seems entirely pointless. I don't even know why it exists
frankly.

>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>
> Don't do that. YMD is good: it's unambiguous. MDY is a weird-ass, ambiguous
> date format, used by a tiny proportion of the world's population.

I know but it's like metric. I use the international standard for file
management but it's still awkward for me to read & I'm personally more
comfortable with the new weird formatting.

> Is "/photo-update" really needed?

Yes, that's a new blog type feature which is not necessarily my best
work, just whatever I did this week. I've been sending emails with that
title for some time now and it seems sensible to have an archive on the web.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Toby A Inkster wrote:

>Drop it. "www." is evil.
Why?

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:42:13 GMT
David Segall scribed:

> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>>Drop it. "www." is evil.
> Why?

It stands for "Wicked Witch of the West"...

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Paul Furman wrote:
> I've been going through doing some search engine friendliness updates
> with rewrite rules and would like to clean up some php query strings
> like ?PG=2&PIC=5

OK folks, it's a done deal, I got all his rewrite stuff working (with
help from a consultan via instant messanging):

Major update to the web site, this time the addresses have become much
shorter & simpler, instead of
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=0_gallery/0-Photo-U pdate/2007-07-19?PG=1&PIC=2
the new links look like
http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/07-19-07/pg1pc2
(the old links still work too)

(let me know if you get errors, this has been a big project to re-code)

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Neredbojias wrote:

> It stands for "Wicked Witch of the West"...

ROFL. Well, not R, but OFL anyway.

For other reasons: http://no-www.org

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 37 days, 1:23.]

Cryptography Challenge
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/24/crypto-challenge/

Re: nicer url thoughts?

In article ,
Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> > It stands for "Wicked Witch of the West"...
>
> ROFL. Well, not R, but OFL anyway.
>
> For other reasons: http://no-www.org

In that, it it suggested to put in some text in a .htaccess to
make it happen without www. Presumably where it does happen
naturally, there is a server configuration inaccessible to users.
For example, quite a few websites that I have access to the
server files (up to a point) do not need www but there is nothing
to suggest anything about it in the .htaccess that is accessible
to me (if indeed, there is even such a file).

--
dorayme

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:48 GMT
Toby A Inkster scribed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> It stands for "Wicked Witch of the West"...
>
> ROFL. Well, not R, but OFL anyway.
>
> For other reasons: http://no-www.org

Well, okay. I don't think it's a biggy, but... The few servers I've
actually tried seem to take the www-less version of the domain equally a
well as the original. It is true that it _shouldn't_ be necessary - for
convenience, if nothing else.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

"Toby A Inkster" wrote in message
news:4k2pn4-nvu.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
> Paul Furman wrote:

> Don't do that. YMD is good: it's unambiguous. MDY is a weird-ass,
> ambiguous
> date format, used by a tiny proportion of the world's population.

I once did the demographics on this, starting with the Windows region
settings through to some site that lists the population of each country.

The biggest of course is the U S of A with ~4.5% of the planets population.

The other 10 or so countries that use MDY add up to a further 1% or so.

So, the tiny proportion is around 5.5%. And they think they own the internet
:-)

--
Richard.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

dorayme wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>It stands for "Wicked Witch of the West"...
>>
>>ROFL. Well, not R, but OFL anyway.
>>
>>For other reasons: http://no-www.org
>
> In that, it it suggested to put in some text in a .htaccess to
> make it happen without www. Presumably where it does happen
> naturally, there is a server configuration inaccessible to users.
> For example, quite a few websites that I have access to the
> server files (up to a point) do not need www but there is nothing
> to suggest anything about it in the .htaccess that is accessible
> to me (if indeed, there is even such a file).

All kinds of weird solutions for this.
Here's what I ended up with:

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.edgehill\.net$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://edgehill.net/$1 [NC,R=301,L]


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>
> Don't do that. YMD is good: it's unambiguous. MDY is a weird-ass, ambiguous
> date format, used by a tiny proportion of the world's population.


Paul Furman wrote:

> /07-19-07/

Argh!

make that 7-19-07 (both work but the first is a perfect example why it's
confusing)

Re: nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:
> "Toby A Inkster" wrote in message
> news:4k2pn4-nvu.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Don't do that. YMD is good: it's unambiguous. MDY is a weird-ass,
>> ambiguous
>> date format, used by a tiny proportion of the world's population.
>
> I once did the demographics on this, starting with the Windows region
> settings through to some site that lists the population of each country.
>
> The biggest of course is the U S of A with ~4.5% of the planets population.
>
> The other 10 or so countries that use MDY add up to a further 1% or so.
>
> So, the tiny proportion is around 5.5%. And they think they own the internet
> :-)
>

Hey! Al Gore /invented/ the Internet!!!

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Law of Probability Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan will not
be evenly distributed.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:

> I once did the demographics on this, starting with the Windows region
> settings through to some site that lists the population of each country.

http://message-id.net/4b5k74-8fk.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk

strtotime_i18n function:
http://demiblog.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/demiblog/trunk/bl og/includes/i18n.php?view=markup

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 38 days, 12:54.]

Cryptography Challenge
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/24/crypto-challenge/

Re: nicer url thoughts?

"Toby A Inkster" wrote in message
news:nv2un4-nvu.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
> rf wrote:
>
>> I once did the demographics on this, starting with the Windows region
>> settings through to some site that lists the population of each country.
>
> http://message-id.net/4b5k74-8fk.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk

I missed a % somewhere. Working from memory, was a couple or three years ago
(and so predates your post and I am sure I posted it somewhere though I
can't find it :-) ). 6.5 does sound more likely now that I am prodded about
it. Forgot about those blokes next door to us, the Philippinos.

> strtotime_i18n function:
> http://demiblog.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/demiblog/trunk/bl og/includes/i18n.php?view=markup

Handy looking code, if I ever need to fiddle with dates.


In general I get mightily narked when that upstart country, the U S of A,
tries to lay down the law on how things should work for the 95.5% rest of
the world[1]. Sure they may have invented the internet but we the Aussies,
tiny as we are, have invented the odd thing or two, the rotary lawn mower,
the Hills clothes hoist, much more practical things than this fiddly
internet stuff. And those blighters can't even spell.

[1]

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:09:47
GMT rf scribed:

> In general I get mightily narked when that upstart country, the U S of
> A, tries to lay down the law on how things should work for the 95.5%
> rest of the world[1]. Sure they may have invented the internet but we
> the Aussies, tiny as we are, have invented the odd thing or two, the
> rotary lawn mower, the Hills clothes hoist, much more practical things
> than this fiddly internet stuff. And those blighters can't even spell.

Australians invented the rotary lawnmower? Well, that's probably because
they're always running around in circles. Of course it could be due to the
head spinning syndrome, but that's an ethereally circular argument.

> [1]

Re: nicer url thoughts?

>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07

No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.

Steve Veltkamp
http:BizShop.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>
> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.

ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
6-24-07.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: nicer url thoughts?

In article ,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:

> it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
> 6-24-07.

The immediate interest of a date is often the particular day so
that starting makes sense. Then the month, then the year -
because the die is set and you have to go in hierarchical order.
Or perhaps the regular order of a computer path, the top to the
particular, year, month, then day. Anything in between is indeed
nonsensical.

--
dorayme

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>
>>>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>
>>No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>
> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
> 6-24-07.

I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
(and most Americans), the dashes simply make it easier to read. That's
how it presents now. 2007-06-24 is the actual archive system which makes
things sort properly and is more bulletproof regarding misinterpretation.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Re: nicer url thoughts?

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>
>>>>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>
>>>No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>
>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
>> 6-24-07.
>
> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with

You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other 95%
will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.

--
Richard.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:
> "Paul Furman" wrote in message
> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
>>> 6-24-07.
>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
>
> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other 95%
> will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.
>

So, 95% of the planet is too stupid to figure it out? That's a pretty
sad opinion of most of the world.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
When God is amazed, does he say: "Oh my Me!"?

Re: nicer url thoughts?

"Ed Mullen" wrote in message
news:CM-dnXOOEsmHGW3bnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@comcast.com...
> rf wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" wrote in message
>> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>>> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
>>>> 6-24-07.
>>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
>>
>> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other
>> 95% will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.
>>
>
> So, 95% of the planet is too stupid to figure it out? That's a pretty sad
> opinion of most of the world.

Ok, figure this one out:
6/5/07

Are you going to be a nearly month late for your meeting?

--
Richard.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

In article ,
Ed Mullen wrote:

> rf wrote:
> > "Paul Furman" wrote in message
> > news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
> >>>> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
> >>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
> >>> 6-24-07.
> >> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
> >
> > You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other 95%
> > will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.
> >
>
> So, 95% of the planet is too stupid to figure it out? That's a pretty
> sad opinion of most of the world.

This some kind of American sadness?

--
dorayme

Re: nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:

>
> "Paul Furman" wrote in message
> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>>
>>>>No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>>
>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the
>>> nonsensical 6-24-07.
>>
>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable
>> with
>
> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format.
> The other 95% will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.

You don't seem to think that that other 95% of the people on the
planet are very intelligent if you think that when they see "6-24-
07" they don't simply realize it's "the other system" and interpret
that way -- the way the 5% is smart enough to do that when we see
"24-6-07". Of course, you could be right.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <------------- New Site Aug 28

Re: nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:
> "Paul Furman" wrote in message
> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
>>> 6-24-07.
>>
>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
>
> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format.

You should use whatever format your target audience is most familiar with.

> The other 95%
> will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.

If your target audience is limited to that 5% of the planet, who cares
about the rest?

--
Berg

Re: nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:
> "Ed Mullen" wrote in message
> news:CM-dnXOOEsmHGW3bnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> rf wrote:
>>> "Paul Furman" wrote in message
>>> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>>>> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
>>>>> 6-24-07.
>>>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
>>> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other
>>> 95% will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.
>>>
>> So, 95% of the planet is too stupid to figure it out? That's a pretty sad
>> opinion of most of the world.
>
> Ok, figure this one out:
> 6/5/07
>
> Are you going to be a nearly month late for your meeting?
>

If I knew (which I certainly would in your example) the source of the
message I'd know. If I were uncertain I would clarify it.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.

Re: nicer url thoughts?

Chris F.A. Johnson:

> ISO requires the dashes

No, ISO8601 does not require hyphens. The basic format YYYYMMDD is
fine if compactness trumps readability. YYYY-MM-DD is the extended
format.

--
Jock