That moniker, at least for me, is reserved to links that look something like this: `/{endpoint}/{long_hash}?__gtr[0]&__jd__[df]=%ezaz54%d/{another_very_long_hash}[c__f]/`
Now, that's an ugly URL!
It's hard to find an example Of one of those now, because the kind of sites that tolerate weird comma-infested URLs in 2003 aren't the kind of sites that meticulously maintain those URLs in working order for 20+ years!
The only Cool URI failure on Wikipedia is the ".m" which is added to the mobile view.
Right now, I’m knee-deep in coding my Django app. I totally dig how the framework kinda "forces" you to write neat URLs ― it’s one of my favorite things about it. This might seem silly, but I actually take immense pride in crafting simple, elegant URLs, even if the majority of the users won't even notice it.
As for the comma infested URLs, the website of one of the major news outlets in my country manifests such behavior. It always puzzled me as to what tech stack they were using. I'm not sayin they still use it today (as Vignette went belly up in 2009), but this can be a heritage from those days.
I really enjoy using Django since I first got to know it back in the 2.2 days, I’ve used nothing else for my projects, big or small. I’m head over heels for every bit of it and having recommending it for years to my friends!
Big thanks to you, Simon, for helping create this awesome piece of tech!
Example of a "correct" url
?value=A&value=B&value=C
Complete frameworks would have a method that returned the values as a list. Some like PHP required ugly work arounds where you had to name the parameter using the array syntax: value[]=A&value[]=B&value[]=C
Even if the framework supported multi-values, many preferred the shorter version: value=A,B,C and split the values in code instead
So, people who learnt programming in 2000, until ~2010 it's quite normal to see the commas as delimiter of multiple parameters.
values = request.GET.getlist("value")
# values is now ["A", "B"]
Handy if anything actually supported it, because then you could plop parameters on the end of urls without looking to see if there was already a ?
I'm sure it's used somewhere, but I can only remember it being used by Yahoo Link Tracking ;_ylt=y64encodedgunk
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-230857%22]}
It’s not much harder to hide it; E.g. for static files, create a directory and put an index.html there.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php/?id={redacted}&story_fbid={redacted}That the page is sent to your browser as HTML is not a defining attribute and could very well depend on HTTP content negotiation.
Yes, why not? Just because file extensions matter to certain systems doesn't mean they do for others, and nothing about a URL to a file is required to match its DOS/Windows friendly file name.
> GET /<artistname>/<albumname>/<songname>/download HTTP/1.1
> Host: fakemusicstore.example
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Content-Type: audio/mpeg
< Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="<artistname> - <songname>.mp3"
TBH I agree, I personally do my best to ensure the extension in the URL matches the document type on sites I run, but my point was that it's not in any way required and it's actually somewhat common for it to not be the case where the person I was replying to seemed to think it mattered.
The hiding of the index file name in a folder is kind of a quirk, it's automatic behavior that is being taken advantage of to make "nice" URIs, but it's actually hiding useful information.
File extensions, while a DOS/Windows thing, I've found to be an extremely useful convention on unix, and linux, and just about any other system I've used (though I can't remember what we did on VAX box we used to use in the 90s).