Month: February 2003

Morphing URLs

Post author By Shelley Powers
Post date February 22, 2003

I signed up at Blogrolling.com to manage my blogroll, and you can the results in this page. Scroll down and you’ll see the ten most recently active webloggers in my virtual neighborhood. Click the “more…” link and you’ll go to my Blogroll page.

I’m using the blogrolling.com feed a couple of different ways. I’m using the raw PHP feed in this page, because it’s simple to process. However, I modified the code of the feed to only display the recent ten updates. I’d create another list, instead, and limit it to the most recent ten (a feature at blogrolling.com), but that’s only for those who have paid, and money is in short supply at the moment. So I tweaked the code on my own.

In the Blogroll page, I’m accessing the feed as RSS, and then using the PHP XML classes to process the data. By doing so, I can access the individual elements of the feed, such as the URL of the weblog, which I then use with my new Talkback feature.

(I’m thinking of accessing the RSS feed in this page and then caching the feed locally, to be used by the blogroll page, and lower the number of hits against the blogrolling.com site. We’ll see.)

Blogrolling.com makes use of changes.xml from weblogs.com to check for recently updated weblogs, a feature I incorporated into my blogroll. I really appreciate this, because it lets me see who’s updated without having to use an RSS aggregator, something I’m not fond of.

The problem, though, is that we’re inconsistent in how we format URLs. For instance, a person might update weblogs.com as “http://www.myweblog.com/”, but a blogrolling.com customer adds them as “http://myweblog.com”. These are two different URLs, syntactically, even though they point to the same weblog. Unfortunately, then, when the person updates their weblog, they’re not floating to the top of my blogroll.

The problem is that we all have different understandings of how a URL works, and what we need to use in a URL, and what not. Time for URL 101, I think.

First, the ‘www’ that is so common in most URLs today. Originally, the ‘www’ part of a URL stood for the hostname of the server on which the website lived. The complete name, ‘www.myweblog.com’ then translated into a specific IP (via DNS lookup of the domain) and a specific server.

Things have changed quite a bit and we now have something called virtual hosting. What this is, among other things, is the ability to create a sub-directory, such as (web server basepath)/weblog, and have the web server map weblog.domainname.com to that sub-directory. For instance, I have the following sub-directories, each of which is paired with the mapped subdomain:

basepath/weblog – weblog.burningbird.net
basepath/rdf – rdf.burningbird.net
basepath/articles – articles.burningbird.net
basepath/www – www.burningbird.net
and so on..

The last one in the listing shows www.burningbird.net, but I don’t have to use “http://www.burningbird.net” to get to my top-level web site — I can use “http://burningbird.net”. The reason is within my web server configuration files, the URLs “http://burningbird.net” and “http://www.burningbird.net” map to the exact same sub-directory, the one named ‘www’. You’ll find with most modern web installations that “http://www.domainname.com” and “http://domainname.com” map to the same sub-directory on the server (something you can easily check through your browser).

Just think: All that time when you’ve been typing in ‘www’, when you could have saved key strokes. Why you probably could have saved enough time to go and buy a Krispy Kreme.

(Note, though, that this mapping isn’t consistent, and you may actually get errors if you omit the ‘www’. Don’t you love individualism in web access?)

So the use of ‘www’ isn’t mandatory. Neither is the use of the trailing forward slash (‘/’) at the end of the URL, as you’ll see some people use.

In olden times, when you used the trailing slash at the end of the URL, the browser knew that you were accessing a directory not a file, and you saved the browser a second trip to the server to determine this. However, all modern browsers now assume that “http://yourdomain.com” and “http://yourdomain.com/” are the same, and you don’t get any performance benefit from the use. However, if your weblog is off of a sub-directory, such as “http://yourdomain.com/somedirectory/”, you will still, usually, get a performance benefit using the trailing slash.

However, the use of the trailing slash is one more difference in our URLs. At this point we have the following variations all pointing to the same web page:

http://www.yourdomain.com
http://www.yourdomain.com/
http://yourdomain.com
http://yourdomain.com/

But there’s yet another variation — specifying a file, explicitly.

For most of us, our weblogs are located in a page named ‘index.someextension’. It could be ‘index.html’ or ‘index.htm’ or ‘index.php’ and so on, but it is the index file, which is the default file to load when a directory is specified without a file name (this differs slightly based on web server and configuration).

To load my weblog, you can access “http://weblog.burningbird.net”, and you’ll get “http://weblog.burningbird.net/index.php”, because my web server is configured to look for files in the following order:

index.html
index.htm
index.php
and so on

As long as I don’t accidentally include an ‘index.html’ file in my directory, you’ll get the index.php page instead.

By not specifically giving the file name extension, what I can do is change the type of file, from index.html to index.php, and you all don’t have to change your links to me because you’re only specifying the directory, not explicitly the file name. In fact, if a person is using the default ‘index’ file name, you shouldn’t use this in your blogroll link to them, because it will break if they go to a new file format.

However, we now have yet another variation of the URL:

http://www.yourdomain.com
http://www.yourdomain.com/
http://www.yourdomain.com/index.html
http://yourdomain.com
http://yourdomain.com/
http://yourdomain.com/index.html

All in all, our use of URLs is about as distinct as we are, and I’m amazed that the bubble up feature of blogrolling.com works, at all.

To attempt to work around these challenges, I added people to my blogrolling.com list when they showed on weblogs.com, using the URL format they used with their pings. In addition, I checked the person’s perma-links, to see if they used ‘http://www.domainname.com’ or ‘http://domainname.com’, and so on. It became a treasure hunt in a way, but the golden egg in this hunt is a correctly bubble upped URL when the person updates.

BUT…

This has left my Talkback feature in a difficult state. The reason is, that the URL you use to ping weblogs.com, usually generated by your weblogging tool, isn’t the same URL you used in my comments. So, you might bubble up to the top of my blogroll, but querying for the blogrolling.com supplied URL in Talkback results in no comments showing.

Pain in the butt.

What we need is consistency. Perhaps we need a URL cleanup day, to clean up the URLs we use in our blogrolls. And a common guideline for URL usage, such as the following:

Use ‘www’ only if you need to. You don’t need to use ‘www’ unless your page doesn’t resolve without it.
Use the default ‘index.extension’ filename for your weblog main page.
If the default filename is used, don’t including this in the blogroll link. You’re putting a burden on the weblogger to have to use redirection if they want to change to a different page format.
Use the same URL in your comments that you use when pinging weblogs.com or blo.gs. In fact, be consistent with your weblog URL regardless of where you use it.

I’m not going to say it…

Post author By Shelley Powers
Post date February 22, 2003

Unfortunately, I came down with the same flu that’s hit so many others. This and a nasty snow storm that just blew in are conspiring to keep me from my much needed walks and explorations, dammit. So I might as well work on the edits for Practical RDF, and some tech tweaks around here.

One tweak is, I upgraded to Movable Type 2.62. I had to re-apply my Trackback re-build customization, and one small change in the search template, but other than that, the upgrade went without a problem.

I hadn’t started playing with any of the new features yet, but did notice the button to add Creative Common licenses to your weblog. However, before you touch that button, you might want to read about the experiences of a MT user that Phil documented. It seems someone decided to play around with the license only to find out you can’t remove it from the page. There is no off switch. Currently, the only way to remove CC licenses in MT is to make a change in the database, and it sounds like the templates.

Big ouch, there. Sounds like Ben is working on the problem, but I wouldn’t play with pushing buttons now, until this fix is made.

However, there is a misunderstanding I do believe in the license interpretation. From what some of the legal beagles here abouts have said, if you apply a CC license on a work, and then withdraw it, this withdrawal doesn’t impact on people who have already used your work. However, the CC license will no longer apply to new uses of this work. At least, this is my understanding of what others have said.

(I wish I could remember who said this and where. This is one of those times when we need to be able to track a thread regardless of use of tracback and other technologies.)

Additionally, and legal people correct me if I’m wrong, in Phil’s comments, the person who had mistakenly applied the license stated:

It would have only granted an “irrevocable license” on any new material published while the CCL was still displayed. (The content published previously remains protected by its original copyright since it predates the CCL and cannot be covered by the CCL legal agreement.) Since no new content was published under the Creative Commons License while it was briefly displayed on the site, the license’s addition to the page and later removal is mute.

Sorry, but from what I hear, the CC license applies to whatever it’s attached to, regardless of date of material. Unless you specifically make annotations that the license is only effective on material dated after such and such a date, or only to the design of the site, or only to the writing, or only the images, that license applies to everything. And if you mix CC licenses and copyright on the same page, from what I’ve been told, the person can pick which license they choose to use your material under — so long copyright.

Dammit, call me cranky from being sick and missing out on my walk, but the point I’ve been making is that the use of the license is too damn confusing for people who aren’t legal experts. I think adding CC license support into Movable Type is a mistake, pure and simple. This is a case of technology and law mixing to the detriment of both. Adding new toys, but new toys that can bite you on the butt.

Burningbird

Referrers, just for fun

Post author By Shelley Powers
Post date February 21, 2003

The last two weeks have been long indeed, and it hit me tonight that I’m tired, and that I really need to get away from the computer. My back is doing extremely well, and I want to get out for a nice long, gentle hike. There’s also an Art Deco neighborhood somewhere in St. Lou I want to explore, and a thousand towns I haven’t seen yet.

However, before I take off for a long weekend, tonight I spent some time with my web server logs, checking out who’s visting, and what they’re looking at. Sometimes, if you don’t fixate on ‘popularity’, this can be a bit of fun.

For instance, I was inundated this week from people reaching my site while looking for directions in how to drive in ice and snow. Go ahead and do a search in Google on the words ‘how to drive in ice and snow’ and you’ll see why I had such a giggle from this one. I hope I don’t get sued.

Backtrack is very popular, which pleased me quite a bit. I can see that Talkback looks to match it, though I think that could be due to the novelty. If you pay me a dollar, I’ll tell you the most popular Backtracked sites and Talkbacked webloggers.

“Parable of the Languages” is still my most popular article, even beating out “How to Drive in Ice and Snow”. Will you forgive me if I get a little boost at how well this has done? Especially this week, seeing the numbers and the continued popularity has been balm for a battered writer’s soul. I need to post the sequel, “Parable of the Languages: The Markup Strike Back”, but I’m hesitant — you know what happens with sequels.

Anyway, new college referrals for Parable:

Swinborne University in Australia
UMBC in Maryland

The C# book chapters are surprisingly popular. Interest in C# must be picking up. I need to finish this online book. At the least, it won’t be the hassle, headache, and grief that Practical RDF has been.

My most popular page is http://burningbird.net/burningbird.rdf. Not surprising, that. My second most popular page is mt-comments.cgi. No surprise there, either. Talk talk talk, that’s us. Can’t shut us up for love nor money.

I had a visitor from Tuvalu. Hi!

Then there’s my old friends, the cryptozoologists. In case you’re curious, cyrptozoology is the study of legendary animals thought to be real, or extinct animals thought still to be alive. The practitioners call it “The Study of Hidden Animals”. What animals? Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Tasmanian Tiger to name a few. I connected up with the cryptozoology folks when I was doing research for the “Tale of Two Monsters” articles. (Research. That’s what you don’t do when you weblog.)

I still get several hits for the articles, primarily from this page. I used to get referrals from Loren Coleman, but he doesn’t have his links page anymore.

Loren Coleman is one of the leading cryptozoologists, and author of several books. I have an autographed copy of his book on Tom Slick, which is now out of print. In fact, remind me to tell you the story about Tom Slick, the Yeti, the Dali Lama, and the actor Nicolas Cage that Loren told me in emails long ago.

Why did I write an article about cryptozoology? Why not? Isn’t it fun sometimes just to let your fancy roam? Explore for the sheer joy of the exploration? So if any of you have questions about Champ, Ogopogo, or the Mothman, holler.

That wraps up my walk on vanity lane. Have a fun weekend my gang o’ friends.

Writing

On writing

Post author By Shelley Powers
Post date February 20, 2003

I know I said this once before, but it’s worth repeating:

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be writers.

Once you step over the line from being a writer who lives to write to being a writer who writes to live, you’ve entered Dante’s Eleventh Circle. The bad one. The one for writers that was too horrible even for Dante to describe.

(Remind me to tell you about seeing the exhibition of Botticelli’s Dante when I was in London a couple of years back. Extraordinary. Great trip. Even ate beef in spite of the fears. The Londoners make a lousy hamburger. )

In line with this philosophy that I’m imparting to you from long and painful experience, I thought I would re-publish one of my favorite old posts; one that somehow got lost when I re-arranged my sites and weblogs. Thanks to Larry in comments in Monica’s terrific “Editing my Brain” post, for reminding me of it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you On Writing Professionally:

———————————————————————————–

There’s some form of mystic associated with writing professionally that, in some ways, I don’t understand.

It doesn’t exist with, say, web development — there are scores of web page designers and developers who would be appalled at having to do what they do as a hobby, as a job, day in and day out. In addition, there are those who garden, cook, drive, sew, and care for children who wouldn’t even consider doing the same for a buck.

But writing, well, writing professionally somehow imbues the written word with a higher degree of importance than the word that’s given freely. Even if the written word is included in the biggest jumble of disorganized crap that ever existed on any planet in the universe, and the freely given word is the epitomy of elegance, grace, and clarity.

Perhaps the reason for this mystic is that if one is paid for the word, one is somehow supposed to be more proficient with the use of the word. I write this word — apple — and I am not paid for it. Therefore, the value of –apple — is worth less then the word — Apple — as long as it is followed by OS X and I’ve convinced some editor somewhere that it is worthy of inclusion within their magazine, eZine, book, or other form of publication.

It is true that when one is paid for an act, one improves over time. Based on this we can conclude that when we pay for an action, we should be able to expect more from that action. This works for sex — why not writing?

The act of writing professionally. The publication process.

As an example of the publication process, take a look at the following sentence:

My recommendation would be that you flibit the gidbet and then flummer the dummer.

One publication prefers that writers not use the familiar, so can the professional writer remove all familiar references?

Okay, how’s this:

It is accepted practice to flibit the gidget and then flummer the dummer.

Another publication prefers the familiar form, and also prefers witty repartee with the reader. Can the professional writer please adjust accordingly?

Okay, how’s this:

My recommendation would be that you flibit the gidbet and then flummer the dummer, and you’ll be kicking ass at that point.

A third publication hastens to add that words such as “ass” might be offensive to some readers. Please edit this remark.

Okay. Is the following acceptable:

My recommendation would be that you flibit the gidbet and then flummer the dummer, and you’ll be much happier with the results.

There’s another publication. This one likes to have notes, sidebars, and annotations.

Okay. Then how the hell is this:

My recommendation (being aware that I have enormous experience with this) would be that you flibit the gidbet (see www.gidbet.com for more info) and then flummer the dummer, (see sidebar A1), and you’ll be happier with the results (happier: increased sense of well being).

Are these examples of writing somehow worth more than the unpaid version of the same, such as one could find at a weblog?

Weblog version:

To hell with the gidbet, who cares about the flummer, go get a beer, and screw it all until tomorrow.

I think not.

(Legal Disclaimer: The publications referred to in this document are entirely fictional. Any similarity to an existing publication is purely coincidental.)

Diversity

Amazons raise your shields on high

Post author By Shelley Powers
Post date February 20, 2003

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dave quotes a posting from Tara Sue, who writes:

My friend Ross and I have a lot in common. We both come from military families–his cousin and uncle serve and my brothers are soldiers. We were both raised by our father. And we share many ideas in business and politics. But there is plenty of room to disagree. Today we argued about war. I spoke with his wife and said, “If we replaced every man in power with a woman, there would be less war.” I don’t care for any speculation on the matter. We’ve never experienced mass matriarchy on this planet. There is no room for discussion–only proof. We will make peace in this world only after peace has been brought to our home. There are too many females pushing the testosterone bandwagon. I read an article today by a “chick” who thinks war is the “grown-up” thing to do. She went so far as too chide the protestors as though they are just simple minded youngsters, left-overs from the sixities who are just not “grown up” enough to make a choice for peace, but those who are grown up should know to support the war. Well, sister, even morons grow up.

Jonathon picks up on the premise and writes about the changing roles of women in combat. He writes:

I have no idea what Tara Sue Grubb might think of women in the military—whether she sees female soldiers as part of that group of women she criticizes for wanting “to have what [men] have.” Yet, given that one of the key goals of feminism has been to dismantle the political and cultural barriers to women’s participation in every field of human activity, it’s inevitable that women—or, at least, some women—would wish to participate in John Keegan’s “entirely masculine activity”: combat.

When we consider the major psychological transformations precipitated by weapons and tactics that allowed man to kill at a distance in an emotionally detached manner, it is hardly coincidental that women are integrated into combat units in the US Navy and Air Force—where they would not be expected to engage directly with an enemy—but are excluded from combat in the US Army where the chance of face-to-face contact is significantly higher.

The argument about women in combat and whether women being in charge would prevent war is somewhat mute because several times in the past, societies have been matriarchal, and many times, women have been the primary ruler. And we still have war. There is no sex-related war gene. There is only cultural indoctrination.

Think of the lion. It is the female who hunts, and it is the female who protects her young, and therefore the species. All the male does is sleep, have sex with the females, and fight other males for possession of the females.

(Well, okay, from this example I guess we could say that we females lack the gene that makes us want to fight other females over a man.)

For every woman simpering in a kitchen saying she’s too frail to lift a gun because she’ll break a nail; and for every woman claiming woman as goddess who states that if only women were in charge, our nurturing natures would prevent war, I repeat what I said in Jonathon’s comments:

This “woman as nurturing mother figure” is absolute bullshit.

The primary reason women have been adverse to warfare in the past is because women have usually been left at home, unprotected, while the men went off with all the weapons, leaving them vulnerable.

Tara Sue needs to consider a little history lesson about women and fighting. Most of the early Celtic war leaders were women. Women were gladiators in Rome. Most of the native american tribes in this country were matriarchial and they did fight wars. Women have dressed as men to fight as soldiers, or have picked up the guns of fallen soldiers and taken their place — without training I might add.

There isn’t a ‘war gene’ that’s sex related. The only reason women aren’t allowed in fighting infantry is the stupid old men in this country who don’t want to face the political backlash of the first women killed in actual hand to hand combat. Horrors! A potential mother killed!

And because of this, women also lose out on advancements, many of which are dependent on being in a combat unit.

If women have one thing that men don’t have it’s more of a willingness to see and acknowledge our mistakes, and our aggressiveness is usually vocal rather than physical. And these are more from cultural upbringing than sex-related genetics. Perhaps because of these characteristics, there _might_ be less war.

Here we go again, another round of making women into these delicate flowers of sensitivity and feminity, fragile, manipulative little blossoms whose sensibilities are too refined to do something such as ‘fight in a war’. Horrors!

Girlism redux.