<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Google Chrome Making the URL Obsolete?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/</link>
	<description>Kevin Dewalt&#039;s experiences as a DC tech entrepreneur</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 19:50:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob Malkowski</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-30292</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Malkowski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-30292</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve had the same thought about the growing lack of importance of a url.  Also fading in importance are actual email addresses and memorable phone numbers (1-800 SELLRUG).  With directory services and social networks I don&#039;t pay much if any attention to email addresses. I seldom dial a number (all point and click or scroll and click).   My cell phone has not had letters under numbers for two iterations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had the same thought about the growing lack of importance of a url.  Also fading in importance are actual email addresses and memorable phone numbers (1-800 SELLRUG).  With directory services and social networks I don&#8217;t pay much if any attention to email addresses. I seldom dial a number (all point and click or scroll and click).   My cell phone has not had letters under numbers for two iterations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Covati</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-22808</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Covati</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:12:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-22808</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s funny, it&#039;s almost as if we&#039;re going back to those keywords they used to have on AOL. Remember those? Ahh, the good old days.

I agree that urls (or URIs) aren&#039;t the best way to manage web properties. They are much better then the alternative at the time they were created, which was IP addresses. 

The internet, along with many other mediums, evolves over time. I&#039;m sure people will think of URLs as quaint historic oddities in the future.

But it will be a good way off before they aren&#039;t necessary for many, many applications.

@covati on twitter</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s funny, it&#8217;s almost as if we&#8217;re going back to those keywords they used to have on AOL. Remember those? Ahh, the good old days.</p>
<p>I agree that urls (or URIs) aren&#8217;t the best way to manage web properties. They are much better then the alternative at the time they were created, which was IP addresses. </p>
<p>The internet, along with many other mediums, evolves over time. I&#8217;m sure people will think of URLs as quaint historic oddities in the future.</p>
<p>But it will be a good way off before they aren&#8217;t necessary for many, many applications.</p>
<p>@covati on twitter</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Dewalt</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-21911</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Dewalt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-21911</guid>
		<description>Great comments everyone, thanks.

Re: Chrome vs. Firefox.

Yes, you can search in Firefox URL line  But it isn&#039;t stated as an explicit feature as it is in Chrome, and after running a few tests in Vista (I&#039;m one of the 3 suckers who bought Vista) I can say that the execution is much, much better.

But my larger point is this:  URL naming has been such a huge focus of the online world and slowly we see that breaking down as Josh so eloquently puts it.  

Shout-out:  The Josh Atkins Joshlog: http://jatkins94.tumblr.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great comments everyone, thanks.</p>
<p>Re: Chrome vs. Firefox.</p>
<p>Yes, you can search in Firefox URL line  But it isn&#8217;t stated as an explicit feature as it is in Chrome, and after running a few tests in Vista (I&#8217;m one of the 3 suckers who bought Vista) I can say that the execution is much, much better.</p>
<p>But my larger point is this:  URL naming has been such a huge focus of the online world and slowly we see that breaking down as Josh so eloquently puts it.  </p>
<p>Shout-out:  The Josh Atkins Joshlog: <a href="http://jatkins94.tumblr.com/" rel="nofollow">http://jatkins94.tumblr.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-21877</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-21877</guid>
		<description>Ryan is right. Firefox will search in the same box URLs are typed in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ryan is right. Firefox will search in the same box URLs are typed in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Atkins</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-21854</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Atkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-21854</guid>
		<description>@Kevin I think that&#039;s what Ryan meant too (&quot;..will see tremendous benefit in this through a larger number of searches&quot;). Anyway, insightful post. I&#039;m no Chrome fan, although I have to admit it has some neat features (but that in no way makes me want to use it over Firefox).

To be honest, I think the URL (or, more precisely, the URI), is too fundamental to the Web to eradicate, or even deprecate. Look at any publication by a medium to large sized business since 1998: memos, headed letters, flyers, handouts, etc. They all have one thing in common: they have a web address.

I&#039;d be the first one  to acknowledge that many (perhaps, even, _most_) websites screw up URIs. They don&#039;t bother to use mod_rewrite or virtual folders, or the like, and you end up with poor-usability, inappropriate, unhelpful, and just plain weird URIs, that help no one, least of all the company whose website it is.

That has to stop.
But it _is_ stopping. Inadvertently, yes - even today, far from all webmasters make a concious choice to use usable URIs, but content management systems/blog engines such as Wordpress, Blogger, et al., do it for them.

Hurray for blogs! :-).

Basically, I think that properly structured, high-usability, and perhaps hierarchically structured URIs are such a benefit that they outweigh the disadvantages of having even most websites use poorly structured ones.

So that&#039;s my two cents. Um, actually, judging by the comment length, perhaps it&#039;s two dollars. Oh well. ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kevin I think that&#8217;s what Ryan meant too (&#8220;..will see tremendous benefit in this through a larger number of searches&#8221;). Anyway, insightful post. I&#8217;m no Chrome fan, although I have to admit it has some neat features (but that in no way makes me want to use it over Firefox).</p>
<p>To be honest, I think the URL (or, more precisely, the URI), is too fundamental to the Web to eradicate, or even deprecate. Look at any publication by a medium to large sized business since 1998: memos, headed letters, flyers, handouts, etc. They all have one thing in common: they have a web address.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be the first one  to acknowledge that many (perhaps, even, _most_) websites screw up URIs. They don&#8217;t bother to use mod_rewrite or virtual folders, or the like, and you end up with poor-usability, inappropriate, unhelpful, and just plain weird URIs, that help no one, least of all the company whose website it is.</p>
<p>That has to stop.<br />
But it _is_ stopping. Inadvertently, yes &#8211; even today, far from all webmasters make a concious choice to use usable URIs, but content management systems/blog engines such as Wordpress, Blogger, et al., do it for them.</p>
<p>Hurray for blogs! <img src='http://kevindewalt.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> .</p>
<p>Basically, I think that properly structured, high-usability, and perhaps hierarchically structured URIs are such a benefit that they outweigh the disadvantages of having even most websites use poorly structured ones.</p>
<p>So that&#8217;s my two cents. Um, actually, judging by the comment length, perhaps it&#8217;s two dollars. Oh well. <img src='http://kevindewalt.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Dewalt</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-21502</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Dewalt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-21502</guid>
		<description>Ryan,

Actually Chrome is a bit different because you can search in the same box.  Thus it isn&#039;t the same as not typing the whole url -  you can actually type anything you would enter in the search box.

Thus all of my activity happens through one interface, so even if I don&#039;t know the URL or even how to spell the company&#039;s name it is still easy to find it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ryan,</p>
<p>Actually Chrome is a bit different because you can search in the same box.  Thus it isn&#8217;t the same as not typing the whole url &#8211;  you can actually type anything you would enter in the search box.</p>
<p>Thus all of my activity happens through one interface, so even if I don&#8217;t know the URL or even how to spell the company&#8217;s name it is still easy to find it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan Craver</title>
		<link>http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-21444</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Craver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:43:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kevindewalt.com/blog/2008/10/06/is-google-chrome-making-the-url-obsolete/#comment-21444</guid>
		<description>This is also true in the new versions of Firefox and eventually IE. There is no need to type in www or .com any longer. Google will see a tremendous benefit in this through a larger number of searches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is also true in the new versions of Firefox and eventually IE. There is no need to type in www or .com any longer. Google will see a tremendous benefit in this through a larger number of searches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
