It's sometimes not feasible/possible though. But it is unfortunate, and
I agree you should always just do that where possible.
I wonder if Google's use of the <link rel=canonical> element has been
catching on with any other tools? Will any browses, delicious
extensions, etc., bookmark that, or offer the option to bookmark that,
or anything, instead of the one in the address bar?
On 1/26/2011 4:58 PM, Robert Forkel wrote:
+1 for eric and peter.
A resource's URL has to be the one in the location bar. That's the one
the delicious bookmarklet will grab, etc.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Peter Murray<peter.mur...@lyrasis.org> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:42 -0600,
Pottinger, Hardy J. wrote:
Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my
colleagues, and I was hoping to get a few other perspectives. For a
public interface to a repository and/or digital library, would you
make the handle/PURL an active hyperlink, or just provide the URL in
text form? And why?
My feeling is, making the URL an active hyperlink implies confidence
in the PURL/Handle, and provides the user with functionality they
expect of a hyperlink (right or option-click to copy, or bookmark).
A permanent URL should be displayed in the address bar of the user’s
browser. Then, when users do what they are going to do anyway (select
the link in the address bar& copy it), it will work.
...which is why I intensely dislike Handles and PURLs. Man-up (person-up?
byte-up?) and make a long-term commitment to own the URLs you mint with your
digital asset management system.
Peter
--
Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org tel:+1-678-235-2955
Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/
Lyrasis -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/
Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
