Cool URIs Don't Change (1998)
While the main concept (Don&#x27;t change your URIs!) is good, I can&#x27;t agree at all with their advice on picking names, in particular the &#x27;what to leave out&#x27; section. No subject or topic? The justification for this is flimsy at best - <i>&#x27;the meaning of the words might change&#x27;</i> So what? People cope with this all the time in other media, e.g. old books. It&#x27;s not too confusing. What&#x27;s more confusing is a URI that has all the meaning removed, after all this whole URI discussion is about the human appearance of URIs. Take out the topics and you are just left with dates, numbers and unspecific cruft. If I was designing a company&#x27;s website, I&#x27;m sure as hell going to put the product pages under &#x27;&#x2F;products&#x27;.<p>FWIW, the document&#x27;s own URI is terrible: &#x27;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;Provider&#x2F;Style&#x2F;URI&#x27;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;Provider&#x2F;Style&#x2F;URI&#x27;</a> - who could have any idea what the page is about from that? And what if the meaning of the word &#x27;Provider&#x27; or &#x27;Style&#x27; changes in x years from now? :)  You could argue that the meaning&#x2F;usage of &#x27;URI&#x27; has already changed, because practically no-one uses that term any more. Everyone knows about URLs, not URIs. Not many people could tell you what the difference was. So the article&#x27;s URI has already failed by its own rules.