Frank,
Thanks for the tip. I put all my email authentication stuff at
http://purl.oclc.org/net/edatools/email
I thought http://tinyurl.com was cool. This is even better.
One suggestion - you don't need the second 'net' in the name. You can
apply for a "top-level" name 'spf', then the purl will look like
http://purl.net/spf I think SPF is worthy of its own namespace! :>)
-- Dave
At 10:41 PM 3/2/2005 +0100, you wrote:
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> Is there any advantage in using a redirecting url such as
> http://purl.net/net/spf over temporarily redirecting another
> name outside of the perl.net system, such as using
> http://really-cool-spf-site-name.com/ ?
purl.net exists for almost a decade and it's sponsored by the
OCLC (online computer library c.* IIRC). They support to have
more than one "maintainer" (= person allowed to change a PURL).
They also support bulk updates, but that's irrelevant in this
case. And they have a "PURL validator", but for one PURL that
is also irrelevant, because it's just another link checker.
They won't try stupid stuff like forcing ads on users. One of
the make-a-shorter-link-sites (go.to ?) tried this stunt IIRC.
They allow simple redirections (one PURL to one URL), and they
also allow "partial redirections" like purl.net/net/msgid/xxx
to groups.google.de/groups?selm=xxx for any xxx. In the case
of purl.net/net/spf I've not yet defined a "partial redirect",
because I don't know what and how why.html expects parameters.
(I could test it, but my browser doesn't grok the pobox pages)
The most important thing for a PURL is to have more than only
one maintainer, PURLs are supposed to work when we're all long
dead.
Bye, Frank
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmq'at'gci-net.com * *
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************* *