Why DWiki doesn't use fully REST-ful URLs
REST is a style of web application writing where, among other things, you use simple structured URLs to represent resources instead of heavily parameterized ones. For example, 'http://example.com/users/cks/' is a RESTful URL but 'http://example.com/users?name=cks' is not.
(RESTful URLs are virtuous for a number of reasons, including being less alarming to search engines and being simpler, so it's easier for people to remember them and pass them around and use them. Non-RESTUful URLs map more directly to what the web application is actually doing, so the application doesn't need to decode and crack apart the URL to determine what to do.)
DWiki URLs are mostly but not entirely REST; things like the oldest 10 blog entries are '.../blog/oldest/10/', but actions like adding a comment use URLs like '.../Entry?writecomment'. I chose to use URL parameters for handling actions because that way I could guarantee there never would be a name collision between an action and the name of a real page.
This name collision issue comes up because a fully REST approach overloads the URL; it both names a resource and specifies what you want to do with it. If a given URL can have both sub-resources and things done to it, you have a potential for name collision, and either way you lose. Since at least some DWiki URLs have this potential problem, I opted to punt and go with explicit URL parameters for actions. (Well, usually. Logging in to DWiki uses a synthetic page with a name that can never be valid. I could have given actions similar illegal page names, but that would have made their URLs look ugly.)
For URLs that are more user visible, like '.../blog/oldest/10/' and '.../blog/2007/01/', I decided that I wanted pretty URLs more than I wanted to avoid the chance of name collision. Since these are only alternate views for resources that you can get at already, they just turn off if there's a name collision with a real page.
In hindsight the one blemish in the action approach is that 'show page with comments' is an action, but is for something that users will routinely see (and thus see the uglier URL). Since only real pages (not directories) can have comments, it would have been unambiguous to use REST URLs like '.../Entry/withcomments' instead of the current approach of '.../Entry?showcomments'.
(As a corollary, any action that only applies to real pages could be done that way. But I prefer to keep action handling uniform, even at the cost of somewhat uglier URLs.)