On May 3, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
I know what you are saying and part of my mind wants to agree, but
ultimately I still have to say "yes" .html is an implementation
detail. A url is meant to point to a resource and that's it, how
that resource is defined is an implementation detail.
Also, there are plenty of reasons why a single resource (URL)
should be available in multiple content types. That is seldom used
these days, but it makes a lot of sense. Along the same lines
there is the somewhat crazy example of, "what if XX years from now
you want that same url to return something other than HTML?"
Right. The client sends an HTTP accepts header and the sever uses
that to determine what to send back. Content negotiation.
I just exchanged a couple of emails with Sam Ruby. He likes the idea
of extensions and uses them in his blogging software, but only to
indicate content type. He says that web purists argue that extensions
are not necessary, but that content negotiation doesn't work in
practice.
Perhaps in XX years, when we're doing what you suggest, content
negotiation will have been fixed.
And BTW, I'm not arguing for extensions here, just adding a data
point -- I really don't know what the right decision is.
- Dave
