Chris Messina has a wonderful write up about something I've had a lot of interest in called The Death of the URL. I highly recommend taking a look. While I think he is correct, I have a slightly different perspective. I agree that the current effort by some companies to take advantage of new interfaces to funnel users (ahem: money) their way is dangerous and deserves every pint of paranoia but ultimately they won't last. Those companies know that it won't last but they'll make a boat load of money, build their brand, and look like saints when they finally open up. On the other hand, I really dislike the implication that we need the URL in all its raw glory. The idea of future generations growing up without knowing what a URL is does not scare me -- it delights me. If the web has shown me anything it's that, out here, once something is open it doesn't close. What we're afraid of in the exhibits on display in Chris' post is not the removal of the URL it's the removal of the flexibility a URL provides. I would prefer to frame the death of the URL as the death of the file path. Which is to say, it's not really dead, it has just matured into a more visually compelling and human-oriented metaphor. Most people get along well enough without knowing the path to 99.99% of the files on their computer and even when they think they know the path it's actually a symbolic representation rather than the true file path (ie: "It's under My Downloads"). The URL has been called the modern command line interface and I think that's pretty accurate. I can't know for sure but it would not surprise me if clinging on to the URL will eventually put you in the equivalent camp of those Linux users who are today confident that Windows users are simply "wrong" that the command line is hard to use. I don't want to see text. I want to see Pages, Photos, Videos, and Apps. Modern location bars in browsers still consider a URL to be mundane text. The location bar is really good at helping me when I'm typing but I still can't "grab it" and "share it" without copying and pasting it manually. When I right click on the location bar in FireFox, why am I given only textual options? This is the mentality of the command line engineers and, luckily for them, it serves us well enough for right now. There's a manual way of doing it for now. Exhibit "E" of Chris' post includes the OpenID "NASCAR" problem. Identity in the browser will solve this. I would desperately love to see OpenID (which is a URL) be thought of more as a "thing" just as Information Cards are a "thing". Kim Cameron was spot on the money when he discussed this point years ago. Since OpenID is a URL it needs to be a "thing" just as a Bookmark is a "thing" we can visually interact with in the browser. Why can't my OpenID provider "push" my OpenID to my browser like a certificate? Why can't I click on my OpenID (maybe represented as a "card" on a website) and have it "bookmarked" into my browser for use elsewhere? There's a reason why cookies commonly hold a users identity. The need to "push" identity to the owner is easier then asking them to copy something or remember something. Once the identity "NASCAR" issue is addressed, all other related issues can be addressed. We won't need to see a million share buttons at the end of each blog post because the website will "know" me and ask my OpenID (via XRD) what share services I use. Now please, click one of the share buttons below... sorry if you don't use any of those services. I was forced to assume you use a major service because I don't yet know you. Eventually, I will.