On 5/3/06, John Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave,
I like them if they indicate content type and not the implementation.
Implementation to me means advertizing the tool used to make a content
type and is totally irrelevant to a URL: php, jsp, asp etc. html is a
content type.
I find this argument compelling; that .html indicates an HTML content
type. As such I have no problem with using that particular extension
for pages generating HTML. Same argument for .xml.
Note that /foo is, in some cases, treated the same as
/foo/index.html. Perhaps is better for us to be explicit and say
/weblog.html?
Lance
