[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


On Fri, Feb 12th, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify again why I think it's a good idea to provide
> un-rewritten and un-directed urls by separating the strings...
> The DML has an archive that serves as a resource. Citing the original
> urls rather than rewritten urls that depend on a commercial service
> (that might go out of business or be dropped at some point by usc) I
> think is a good idea. Plus the rewritten urls take up multiple lines
> of text...
> For now, the rewritten url links work OK, but I don't think they
> deserve to be archived.

Perhaps we should add both versions of the URL; one that is clickable for 
convenience (for as long as Proof Point continues to 
exist), and a second non-clickable one that is legible and possibly more 
future-proof (or at least citable from a historic perspective). 
Given how fast the internet changes, there's no guarantee that any particular 
URL will remain functional for any length of time 
(Proof Point or otherwise).


http: // dml.cmnh.org 


Dann Pigdon
Spatial Data Analyst               Australian Dinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia