or add the following to the HTTP Headers of the page
Link: ; rel=shorturl
In most real-world situations, the short URL then redirects with an HTTP code 302 to the long URL, but that behavior is not covered by this RFC.
That's it!:)
why not use rel="alternate.... "
Sam Johnson pointed out alternate doesn't make sense since it implies a link to same content but different format like PDF for example
why not rel="shortcut"
Shortcut in the web context not well understood nomenclature referring to short URLs (OK to define shortcut icons with rel="shortcut icon" though and if we wanted to follow that model we'd use rel="shortcut url", but that seems excessive)
Also somehow shortcut seems like the wrong wording... implies a link that will bypass something... a splash screen, etc...
why not rel="shorter" or rel="short"
Implies shorter version of the content
why not rev="canonical"
rev is absent from HTML5 and confusing with rel="canonical", breaks Google's proposed definition of canonical for search purposes.
why not rel="shorturi"
Part of making a new RFC to describe a simple concept is simple naming. People know that a URL is what's in the location bar in their browser. Besides we'd never see a URI that's not an URL in this context.
I believe a lot of the DRM relates to the Mophun Gaming API. It's going to prohibit you from uploading a game to your phone through IRDA or USB that you didn't buy (or that isn't signed to your phones ID.)
You will still be able to SMS the game to your friend (ex: viral marketing), but they will only be able to play the demo functionality untill they decide to purchase the game and get a new copy that is signed for their phone.
Look, the reason people go to the extremes to get their hard drugs is because they are ILLEGAL! If you could get crack or heroin from a doctor through a prescription - which I think you should, then all the drug related crime would stop. Simple.
Making something illegal doesn't stop it, it just pushes it more underground and makes it more dangerous. If there is a demand (and there is with addictive substances) there wil ALWAYS will be a supply.
And if some government decided to ban caffeine or make it really hard to obtain (like coffee in Eastern Europe during the cold war) then there will be way to smuggle it in ILLEGALY... and by making it ILLEGAL you give rise to all sorts of oranized crime rings,m channels and networks that give a bad name to drugs.
Same things appilies to prohibition in the 1920's. Look it up...
It used to mean that for 10 dollars you can get a record. Then the record companies introduced the CD that was initially overpriced for legit reasons. But the price never went down. Now they want us to buy MP3s that we can't copy etc for $10 an Album? No cover art, nothing that you can take to your friend house. Just the music. For something like this, the price should be $6 or maybe even less.
People think that the record companies don't like new digital formats like MP3s. I think it a dream come true for them!
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I'm an author of a competing RFC so my opinions might be biased - although i hope my reasons are as rational as possible ;)
An alternate approach to this problem:
http://wiki.snaplog.com/short_url
Summary
Short URL auto-discovery is a simple way to link a long URL with a short URL. The following code should be placed in the section of the HTML page.
<link rel="shorturl" href="http://short.com/1234" />
or add the following to the HTTP Headers of the page
Link: ; rel=shorturl
In most real-world situations, the short URL then redirects with an HTTP code 302 to the long URL, but that behavior is not covered by this RFC.
That's it! :)
why not use rel="alternate .... "
Sam Johnson pointed out alternate doesn't make sense since it implies a link to same content but different format like PDF for example
why not rel="shortcut"
Shortcut in the web context not well understood nomenclature referring to short URLs (OK to define shortcut icons with rel="shortcut icon" though and if we wanted to follow that model we'd use rel="shortcut url", but that seems excessive)
Potential legacy code breakage as suggested by http://twitter.com/soypunk/status/1509403319
Also somehow shortcut seems like the wrong wording... implies a link that will bypass something ... a splash screen, etc...
why not rel="shorter" or rel="short"
Implies shorter version of the content
why not rev="canonical"
rev is absent from HTML5 and confusing with rel="canonical", breaks Google's proposed definition of canonical for search purposes.
why not rel="shorturi"
Part of making a new RFC to describe a simple concept is simple naming. People know that a URL is what's in the location bar in their browser. Besides we'd never see a URI that's not an URL in this context.
why not rel="short_url"
The _ is ugly.
Segway in the park
i think the jackass riding it is part of some kind of guerrilla marketing ploy.
I believe a lot of the DRM relates to the Mophun Gaming API. It's going to prohibit you from uploading a game to your phone through IRDA or USB that you didn't buy (or that isn't signed to your phones ID.)
You will still be able to SMS the game to your friend (ex: viral marketing), but they will only be able to play the demo functionality untill they decide to purchase the game and get a new copy that is signed for their phone.
pretty neat.
MophunGamesLook, the reason people go to the extremes to get their hard drugs is because they are ILLEGAL! If you could get crack or heroin from a doctor through a prescription - which I think you should, then all the drug related crime would stop. Simple.
Making something illegal doesn't stop it, it just pushes it more underground and makes it more dangerous. If there is a demand (and there is with addictive substances) there wil ALWAYS will be a supply.
And if some government decided to ban caffeine or make it really hard to obtain (like coffee in Eastern Europe during the cold war) then there will be way to smuggle it in ILLEGALY... and by making it ILLEGAL you give rise to all sorts of oranized crime rings,m channels and networks that give a bad name to drugs.
Same things appilies to prohibition in the 1920's. Look it up...
r.S.
$10 for a bunch of bytes??!!?
It used to mean that for 10 dollars you can get a record. Then the record companies introduced the CD that was initially overpriced for legit reasons. But the price never went down. Now they want us to buy MP3s that we can't copy etc for $10 an Album? No cover art, nothing that you can take to your friend house. Just the music. For something like this, the price should be $6 or maybe even less.
People think that the record companies don't like new digital formats like MP3s. I think it a dream come true for them!
r.S.