John, That's exactly what Apache recommends when you are using content negotiation. I guess the point here is whether we should create links to those versions as well for browsers to navigate to them. In my opinion, most of them are to be used for clients that request those content types therefore they should be setting the content type.
The pain comes when we the developers want to "see" the multiple version s by using a browser instead of curl/wget. -Elias John Hoffmann wrote: > Yes, you hit on a pet peeve. Extensions for content type not > implementation. > > When designing the JavaOne web site 5 years ago we made every page > available in 4 formats which was controlled by the extension. > > standard ones: > javaone/2001/session-1234/detail.html (for desktop browser visitors) > javaone/2001/session-1234/detail.xml (for crawling by 3rd party data > harvesters) > > two custom types: > javaone/2001/session-1234/detail.lite (for small screen devices) > javaone/2001/session-1234/detail.prt (for printing) > > -John > > Ian Kallen wrote: > >> My two cents: When file extensions identify mime types, I think that's >> fine; by convention you get what you expect without having to request >> it first and read the Content-type response header. However, URL's >> that have ".do" (the struts idiom) or ".jsp" or ".php" are revealing >> implementation details and should be avoided. On the last struts app I >> worked on, I specifically cfg'd the controller to use .html so I >> wouldn't be exposing the tell-tale ".do" extensions. >> >> Matt Raible wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >> >> > >
