That's against the site rules, which ask people to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Submitters: note how that does not say "add more linkbait".
Lots of misunderstanding going on in the comments. Let me set your confusion right.
w3id.org is basically the same as purl.org, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_uniform_resource_lo... for a background explanation. They are services that promise to be extremely stable and long lived and where you coin permanent URLs for certain Web technologies (e.g. Link relations RFC 5988 §4.2, XML namespaces, …) that require an identifier that never changes. So in theory you can put any well-formed URI there because most of the time, software will just compare for URI equivalence (RFC 3986 §6), but if a user wants to, he can also dereference the resource identifier and possibly arrive at a human readable document describing what's going on, for example visit http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema in your Web browser. You cannot do this with content addressable IDs (named hashes/ni scheme, IPFS, DHT), URNs (guid/uuid scheme), etc. In order to achieve that practical goal, the dereferenced document needs to be published on a Web host, and the domain name associated with the Web host needs to be under your control.
Now, for coining purls, you put in an indirection. When you lose control of your domain name, simply redirect to a new one. In practice this eliminates link rot. There are other things on the Web that make use of redirection mentioned among these comments, like archives and link shortening, but that's out of scope for purls – you are not supposed to coin purls for general Web documents like news articles (millions a years), but specific documents whose URI serves as an identifier for a schema description or the like (dozens a year).
The difference between the different purl services is their governance model. IMO w3id is best aligned with the interests of hackers that make use of Web technology.
That's nonsense, PHP releases ship with no failing tests. That's from three years ago, and anyway gcov.php.net is not used for CI these days (IIRC it's an abandoned old box, its results are inaccurate), Travis is. The PHP-7.0 and PHP-5.6 branches are currently green on Travis.
> These symbols become part of the city's identity, I'd say that's pretty important.
Vastly more important is the proper purpose of the signage. It signals to someone unfamiliar with the surroundings there is an underground train station here. The targeted persons who require this signage and are helped most by it are predominantly not residents of the city and therefore have little reason to feel identity or affiliation.
Much like regulated traffic signs, it is better that cities do not design their own unique logos, but use a standardised one. See the paragraph on http://mic-ro.com/metro/metrologos.html starting with "Some logos are ubiquitous, at least nationwide" for places where cooperation won out over individuality.
Rapid pace is fine because the language spec is backward compatible. The module problem is rather mostly on the API level. To fix:
• On the technical side, needs the equivalent of CPAN testers to automatically show where stuff breaks.
• On the social side, needs the fostering of a culture where breakage is considered ill-mannered, and module maintainers hence go to lengths to prevent it or fix it promptly.
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10812214 (368 comments)
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10757785 (2 comments)
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=616146