I like file extensions personally, but I don't really have a valid reason. Maybe because .html is serving up HTML. Is that really an implementation detail?
On 5/3/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a subtopic of the overall discussion about the new url structure. I think we can make this decision can be made apart from the general discussion. My current position is that file extensions should not be used for these reasons ... 1. as described by this w3c document about choosing urls, it is a best practice not to include file extensions because the represent an implementation detail. urls are virtual and do not need file extensions to be valid. http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI 2. we can't make file extensions work for all urls anyways, so it seems a little hacky and inconsistent to use them only for part of the url structure. 3. it is always possible to map the virtual urls into real files in any way desired. how a url is served up is an implementation detail and should not affect what the url is. I didn't copy over the discussion about this that started on the wiki, but one item that came up was how media files will work. I am not saying that our media files (gif, jpg, png, etc) can't have file extensions either, i am only talking about urls to our html and xml content right now. So, does everyone agree with that? Does anyone still think we should use file extensions and why? -- Allen
