[Sigia-l] URLs must live forever? Poor man's content negotiation?

[Art Ludwig]

Speaking of following guru's pronouncements...

I'm struggling to comply with the "URL's should live forever" goal,
while
upholding the usability advantages of "descriptive URL's." I'm also
eying the
.htm at the end of every file on the site and wondering...what happens
to
links when all these pages evolve beyond .htm?

I'll explain the context then air my three questions.

***************************

Convincing reasons why URL's should live forever:
<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/981129.html>

I'm redesigning the directory structure of a site which has developed
somewhat haphazardly, in preparation for a tenfold increase in content
and a
two fold increase in marketing.

Here's the best plan I've been able to come up with so far:



+Impose a new directory structure which is rational from a user
standpoint.
Bicycle information and water system information would be under
"bicycles"
and "water" respectively, instead of both split between "books" and
"articles." Coliform water quality information would be at
<http://www.oasisdesign.net/water/coliform.htm>

+Design the directory structure to accommodate foreseeable growth

+Let 50% of the URLs die (gasp!) during the shuffle

+Put permanent redirects in place of the handful of files which generate
most
incoming traffic and links

+Actively promote new and updated links to the files at the new
addresses

+Provide a good 404 page with directory and and search for people who
follow
a rotten link in.

QUESTION ONE: Some gurus favor descriptive directory names
<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990321.html>, others totally
non-descriptive ones <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html>. The
advantage of the latter supposedly being that they are subject to less
change pressure. What has been your experience in favor/
against descriptive URLs? Are they worth the long term link rot or being

stuck in an outdated structure?

***************************
<http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html> suggests that content
negotiation
be used so that a request for oasisdesign.net/water returns the file
oasisdesign/water.htm, even after it turns into oasisdesign/water.asp or

whatever.

QUESTION TWO: Is content negotiation worth the hassle to combat link rot

precipitated by a change in the technology behind the page which changes
the
extension, or expansion in the directory?

***************************

I asked the hosting provider about content negotiation and this is what
they
said:

         Content negotiation slows down the site.
         The best way to accomplish this
         would be to instead of making a "water.htm" file, make a
directory
         called "water" and put an "index.html" file in it.

QUESTION THREE: Have any of you ever done this "poor man's content
negotiation" or seen it done? I'm intrigued, but it would kill bookmarks
and
links to the 80% of the pages in the site which are not now named
"index.htm", and add a whole extra layer of depth to the directory.



Thanks,

Art