On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:12:05PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 26/04/12 15:52, Marco Leise wrote: [...] > >As for the extension, that is probably a configuration option of your > >web server. Search for CGI extensions or .cgi and add .d there. > > Isn't it considered bad practice in modern web design to have _any_ > file extension visible? Or at least any file extension that hints at > the underlying software. > > If nothing else, it's bad for future-proofing of URLs. What happens > when you switch your site from D to D++ in the year 2025? :-)
File extensions in URLs are a thing of the 90's. Nowadays webserver technology makes it possible (and desirable) to drop them altogether. That way, you can implement the initial version of your page as page.pl, then later change it to page.php when you upgrade, and yet later change it to page.d, all without affecting your users or links to that page in the least. If you use something similar to Apache's autoindex, you can even replace it with page/index.d when you decide that the page needs some separate subpages, WITHOUT needing to edit URLs all over the place. (Besides, URL means "*Universal* resource locater": it's not supposed to change without good reason!) T -- A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, yeah."
