Sean Gilligan wrote: >> > > +0 >> > > I'm on the fence. W3C purity is nice and I agree with the >> > > theory/philosophy in this case. But I have some concern that some >> > > clients/applications might work better with extensions (as I've said, >> > > I've seen these issues with media files and browser plugins, but it's >> > > been a few years)
In one of my emails I was asking for these cases as they relate to Roller. We are not delivering video through /roller/video? The main URLs are for those content types the web knows very well already and I don't know of any issues besides RSS, but again, the readers are very used to dealing with them through inspection. If we have /roller/resources/movie.mpg, that's fine, since I'm not sure how we'll stop users from naming it so. However, I think that with the Atom API we could manage how to name every resource that gets uploaded, but that's another email. Search engine placement could also be a big deal and >> > > if there were a real effect, I'd value this over w3c purity. I think the search engine point is not really valid. We are making assumptions only and we don't really know the facts. For every site that we find that claims having lower rank because of extensions, I can find another w/o extensions that has plenty of it and it seems really dumb to me that Google would do that because there's no merit for it in the PageRank calculations. >> > > >> > > The new URLs will clearly be a major improvement. >> > > >> > > -- Sean
