URIs, URLs, Conventions and Experts

chrisp — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:13:00 -0800

I always seem to be on the losing side of arguments that debate the finer points of the Universe. Sometimes the details are important but most of the time they’re just noise.

In these cases, I tend to follow the convention unless I have a strong reason not to. I don’t necessarily know how the convention came to be in all cases.

Unfortunately it’s surprisingly hard to convince others to do the same. Everyone likes to think they’re an expert. Expert is a subjective term though. As a developer, I picked the Ruby and Rails camps. I don’t necessarily blindly agree with everything that comes out of the mouths of Dave Thomas, Jim Weirich, and DHH, but I have learned to trust their judgment.

Finding mentors makes life easier. If you know you can trust the words of someone 90+% of the time, then you can build on what they know and not bother repeating the same arguments they have gone through. This is how “experts” work. Experts have a network of peers that they trust. That’s why they advance so much more quickly. They don’t bother repeating the details.

In order to become an expert you have to assume that you don’t already know everything.

I’ve encountered this situation once again. I’ve been following the RESTful Rails naming convention of using URIs where others use URLs. I did this because I trusted the judgment of the Rails Core team that this was the proper term. I always hated the interchangeability of the two so I was fine with just using one.

The debates came. There were inappropriate URIs strewn all over my code! These are supposed to be URLs I was told. I was asked WHY?! Why oh why have you strewn sloppy terminology all over our codes? My answer of that’s the Rails convention was not good enough. My peers wanted to replace all of these, I said “fine - if you really want to take the time on that.”

So… migrations are added, tests cases modified , source, documentation - all changed to reflect the “proper” naming scheme.

The truly ironic part. The initial naming scheme was right. That’s correct. All of that changed things to the WRONG terminology. It turns out that the Rails core team was right (imagine that). While it’s true that a URL must have an http, ftp, etc protocol at the beginning - it ALSO has to have an extension at the end that says how the resource should be presented. The concept is completely outdated now - which is why URL is considered obsolete terminology (just Google around for that).

I found the below… URI.. which describes the fine points of how the two differ.

http://ajaxian.com/archives/uri-vs-url-whats-the-difference

The lesson is to not assume you know more than everyone else. When a group of experts agree on something, maybe they’re right! Investigate the issue if you like, but don’t assume they’re wrong and you’re right.

clog: Tag Conventions

URIs, URLs, Conventions and Experts