Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Ben Buchanan]

> When it comes to website directory structure, I'm curious to know how
> you gurus out there set up yours.

Well, I can't speak for gurus, but the way I do it:

Each site or sub-site gets its own set of standard sub-directories,
forming a self-contained set of documents and support files.

Common sub-dirs would be /img/ or /images/, /style/ (or /css/,
although that's naming to technical details and not function) and
/doc/ or /nonweb/ for things like .doc, .pdf, etc.

I don't use flash so that hasn't really come up :)

Realistically I don't think it matters what the names are so long as
they're used consistent across the whole site.

-Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Patrick H. Lauke]

To play a bit of devil's advocate here...

Lea de Groot wrote:

5 chars doesnt worry me when it is so clearly a usability aid to say 
'web page' to the user constantly;


so clearly...any evidence?

to Joe Public who is savvy enough to 
look at the URI they are clicking on,


the two things seem at odds...all the Joe Publics I know never even 
noticed the browser's status bar before.


everything that we know, a .html extension clearly implies 'Click here 
to see a web page about xxx - nothing tricky is going to happen, you 
will just get a simple page which won't do nasty things to your machine' 
and improve the probability of click.


but then "cool URIs don't change", so you need to ensure that, once you 
change to something like PHP or similar, you keep the .html file 
extension and then force the server to parse through all files with that 
extension as well; why not just sidestep the issue?


I usually do multiviews in apache, but add an extra closing slash to the 
URL even if it's a single document. Works a treat and looks tidy in the 
address bar - only got to watch out for issues with relative paths and 
images/stylesheets.


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Lea de Groot]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
What's flaky about it?  Apache MultiViews is the easiest way to not 
require file extensions for static files, with the added advantage of 
making content negotiation extremely easy to do.


The implementation, I should have said :)
As you pointed out, IE doesn't cache properly.
I made a list of problems with it at one point, but I can't put my hand 
on it right now.

Not a long list, but enough that it isn't worth the effort.

5 chars doesnt worry me when it is so clearly a usability aid to say 
'web page' to the user constantly; to Joe Public who is savvy enough to 
look at the URI they are clicking on, but not techie enough to know 
everything that we know, a .html extension clearly implies 'Click here 
to see a web page about xxx - nothing tricky is going to happen, you 
will just get a simple page which won't do nasty things to your machine' 
and improve the probability of click.
Nothing true in that implication, of course, but that doesn't stop me 
from giving my users a simple clear message :)


IMHO

Lea
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Richard Czeiger]

I think this article pretty much cover it and seems to be the 'best 
practice' method.

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/urls/

This accommodates eliminating the extension - which would please our 
Grandaddy Tim Berners-Lee

http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

as well as avoids dumping individual files in their own folders - which is 
an inefficient way to do it.


R  :o)

- Original Message - 
From: "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice



Lea de Groot wrote:
* the page-name.some-technology, in implimentation. I tend to end all my 
pages in html no matter what I am using server side because a) it says 
'webpage' and


Then it adds 5 unnecessary characters to the end of the URI that serve no 
real purpose.  I don't like including the file extension on any URI at all 
and if it wasn't for the annoying IE caching bugs I've experienced when 
leaving extensions of images, CSS and JS (i.e. IE apparently won't cache 
the files at all), I wouldn't include those either.


It's also annoying when changing implementation.  Like when I switched 
from blogger to WordPress.  Blogger used static .html files and gave no 
way to configure links to be written without file extensions, even though 
I had MultiViews turned on. WordPress stores everything in the DB and has 
no file extensions in URIs.


I ended up having to use mod_rewrite to accept .html on the end of any 
article URI so that no existing links/bookmarks wouldn't break.  It would 
have been much less hassle if blogger had let me turn off file extensions 
in the first place.



b) the technology for turning extensions off is flakey and


What's flaky about it?  Apache MultiViews is the easiest way to not 
require file extensions for static files, with the added advantage of 
making content negotiation extremely easy to do.


I find putting a single page per directory inefficient in workflow - it 
has to work on both the developers and the users side!


Yes, I agree with that.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Lachlan Hunt]

Lea de Groot wrote:
* the page-name.some-technology, in implimentation. I tend to end all my 
pages in html no matter what I am using server side because a) it says 
'webpage' and


Then it adds 5 unnecessary characters to the end of the URI that serve 
no real purpose.  I don't like including the file extension on any URI 
at all and if it wasn't for the annoying IE caching bugs I've 
experienced when leaving extensions of images, CSS and JS (i.e. IE 
apparently won't cache the files at all), I wouldn't include those either.


It's also annoying when changing implementation.  Like when I switched 
from blogger to WordPress.  Blogger used static .html files and gave no 
way to configure links to be written without file extensions, even 
though I had MultiViews turned on. WordPress stores everything in the DB 
and has no file extensions in URIs.


I ended up having to use mod_rewrite to accept .html on the end of any 
article URI so that no existing links/bookmarks wouldn't break.  It 
would have been much less hassle if blogger had let me turn off file 
extensions in the first place.



b) the technology for turning extensions off is flakey and


What's flaky about it?  Apache MultiViews is the easiest way to not 
require file extensions for static files, with the added advantage of 
making content negotiation extremely easy to do.


I find putting a single page per directory inefficient in workflow - it 
has to work on both the developers and the users side!


Yes, I agree with that.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Lea de Groot]

Herrod, Lisa wrote:

here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they
mean when they say that.. :(


From
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:troll
"a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke 
readers; or a person who makes such a post "

Close enough.

I hope this thread won't devolve into a debate about trolling - we'd be 
totally off topic if so.


FTR, I agree with most of what Daniel says, except:
* the subdomain thing - although I havent experimented with it -
* the page-name.some-technology, in implimentation. I tend to end all my 
pages in html no matter what I am using server side because a) it says 
'webpage' and b) the technology for turning extensions off is flakey and 
I find putting a single page per directory inefficient in workflow - it 
has to work on both the developers and the users side!


warmly,
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Brisbane, Australia
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Paul Bennett]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

:)

Tip (to pay for this OT post): Web developer resource list:
http://www.listible.com/list/online-tools2C-generators2C-checkers 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herrod, Lisa
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:26 AM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they
mean when they say that.. :(

>-Original Message-
>From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, 20 March 2006 10:15 AM
>To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
>Subject: RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
>
>
>I smell troll

>
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Herrod, Lisa wrote:

here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they
mean when they say that.. :(


-Original Message-
From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



I smell troll


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Artemis]

 Original Message 
From: "Daniel Nitsche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re:[WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
Date: 3/19/2006 14:55

> subdomains - avoid if possible (this will probably be contentious :))

Yes you are right... using a subdomain in the manner you've 
described can be quite confusing to the average surfer, so 
using them "naked" like that should be avoided. You've given 
some excellent examples!

However, I wouldn't go so far as to tell people to avoid 
them, but rather explain that they should be used 
*properly*. Subdomains are intended to be used with another 
domain name pointing to them (hence the name subdomain). 
Like in the example you gave of IBM printers. If they 
absolutely must use a subdomain then they should just go 
ahead and purchase ibmprinters.com and point it to the 
subdomain. A lot less confusing lol.

Artemis

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[russ - maxdesign]

>> 
>> I smell troll

> here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they
> mean when they say that.. :(

Someone who posts controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate
attempt to provoke flames. Normally young and male, as surprising as that
sounds  ;)


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Herrod, Lisa]

here's me showing my greeny status again... ;) What do they mean when they
mean when they say that.. :(

>-Original Message-
>From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, 20 March 2006 10:15 AM
>To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
>Subject: RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice
>
>
>I smell troll

>
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Paul Bennett]

I smell troll
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Daniel Nitsche]

Although there are some good tips in this thread, I'd be more worried about how the user is going to see the addresses, rather than how we structure our filesystems :)Some things that bug me about URIs:
page-name.some-technologyWhy does the user care if it's a php, html, asp or whatever file?  Either turn extensions off on your server, or use and index file in each seperate directory.  Also on this, don't link to, or publicise a URI as /folder-name/index.php, always remove the 
index.php.information-architecture through foldersIf a folder name contributes some sort of information to the user, then use it, if it doesn't, then dont!  For example, a URI of /deptartments/whitegoods.  Is the fact that "whitegoods" or whatever is a "department" useful information to the user? If not, then don't include it.  The reason some sites use this structure? To keep folders organised... scary.
technology based uris
www.somedomain.com/some-type-of-script.php?var1=kk3nn3&var2=blahblahblah

Ahhh these are the worst! It's basically lazy programming that causes
this, and there is little reason not to correct it (unless your using
some awful CMS that doesn't let you change this).  These URIs are difficult to email and near impossible to read out and/or
write down.  Bookmarking these can often cause problems as well,
because these URIs may only be valid for a short time.

This article offers some good ideas on this:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/guide-url-rewritingsubdomains - avoid if possible (this will probably be contentious :))
1. Most people don't know that www isn't necessary at the front of a web-URI2. www.example.com is instantly recognisable as a URI, sub.example.com
 isn't necessarily3. More people are familiar with the standard www.example.com/folder/ than sub.example.com4. If you get the "sub" part of 
sub.example.com wrong, you will get a "server not found" type message.  If you get the "folder" part of www.example.com/folder
, the server can handle the 404 not found error, and provide a friendly error message.5. Branding issues - eg. www.printers.ibm.com  Am I visiting a printer website that sells IBM printers? Or is this IBM's website about their printers?
This w3 web quality tip also offers some good points:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/uri-chooseSorry for the rant/thread hijacking :)
Daniel NitscheOn 3/20/06, Wendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sarah Peeke (XERT) wrote:>> Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:>>> How do YOU set up your directories?> Hi Joe,>> I agree with Jay, and pretty much use the same structure.
>> Regarding images, I also break them up a little by giving them a name> which helps me find them later (certainly useful on larger sites):>> eg> staff_name1.jpg> staff_name2.jpg
> ...> staff_name9.jpg>> product_name1.jpg> product_name2.jpg> ...> product_name9.jpg>> etc.>> HTH> Sarah :)>And while this probably makes little to no difference, I label image
folders "i" rather than "images" - easier to type, certainly, and justmight save a megamillisecond or two.> BTW I'm certainly no guru either, but thought I'd offer my 2c!!>
Me, neither, and me, too!Cheers,Wendy>>**The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Wendy]

Sarah Peeke (XERT) wrote:

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:



How do YOU set up your directories?
  


Hi Joe,

I agree with Jay, and pretty much use the same structure.

Regarding images, I also break them up a little by giving them a name
which helps me find them later (certainly useful on larger sites):

eg
staff_name1.jpg
staff_name2.jpg
...
staff_name9.jpg

product_name1.jpg
product_name2.jpg
...
product_name9.jpg

etc.

HTH
Sarah :)
  


And while this probably makes little to no difference, I label image 
folders "i" rather than "images" - easier to type, certainly, and just 
might save a megamillisecond or two.

BTW I'm certainly no guru either, but thought I'd offer my 2c!!
  


Me, neither, and me, too!

Cheers,
Wendy


  

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Sarah Peeke (XERT)]

> Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
> 
> > How do YOU set up your directories?
>

Hi Joe,

I agree with Jay, and pretty much use the same structure.

Regarding images, I also break them up a little by giving them a name
which helps me find them later (certainly useful on larger sites):

eg
staff_name1.jpg
staff_name2.jpg
...
staff_name9.jpg

product_name1.jpg
product_name2.jpg
...
product_name9.jpg

etc.

HTH
Sarah :)

BTW I'm certainly no guru either, but thought I'd offer my 2c!!


> Jay Gilmore wrote:
> 
>> The way I have set up directories is as follows:
>> 
>> /root_web_folder
>>   /_images
>>   /_images/content
>>   /_images/content/content_image.jpg...etc.(photos, illustrations)
>>   /_images/layout
>>   /_images/layout/layout_image.jpg...etc.(backgrounds, buttons etc.)
>> 
>>   /_includes/
>>   /_includes/all.inc.php
>> 
>>   /_scripts
>>   /_scripts/all.js
>> 
>>   /_styles
>>   /_styles/common.css
>>   /_styles/IElte6.css
>>   /_styles/IE7B2P.css
>> 
>>   /main_section_one/
>>   /main_section_one/index.php...etc.
>>   /main_section_one/all_other_section_pages.php
>> 
>>   /main_section_two/
>>   /main_section_two/index.php...etc.
>>   /main_section_one/all_other_section_pages.php
>> 
>>   /index.php...etc.
>
-- 
XERT Communications
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
office: +61 2 4782 3104
mobile: 0438 017 416


web development : digital imaging : dvd production
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Lachlan Hunt]

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:

root web folder
-images


For images, styles and scripts these days I recommend using
/images/
/style/
/script/

When I initially built my own site, I put all of these under a /lib/ 
directory.  That can never be changed now, but on new sites I don't 
bother with that.


For images, I now use dated sub folders (just by year) for any images 
used in my blog articles.  That just keeps the number of images in one 
directory to a minimum, which makes them easier to manage.  Other images 
used in stylesheets or other general places throughout the site either 
go straight in the images directory or into subdirectories by category.



-main.htm


It's conventional to use index.* (.* represents any file extension you 
need) as the main index file on most web servers (IIS uses default.*) so 
that you don't need to include it in the URI.  You can configure it in 
your .htaccess file to main.htm, but why bother when it's easier to just 
use index.*


That way the URI just needs to be:
  http://example.com/
instead of
  http://example.com/main.htm

(It works the same for any subdirectories as well)


-events.htm
-bio.htm


Those are fine, but you should avoid including the file extension in the 
URI so that if you ever change the implementation from static HTML to 
JSP, PHP, ASP or whatever, the URI doesn't need to change just because 
the file extension does and then there's no need to set up redirects 
(which people often forget to do anyway).  If you're using Apache, 
turning on MultiViews is the easiest way to do that.


Recently I was hired to do some cleanup on a site I hadn't built and the 
directory was set up like:


[snip - directory structure]


Generally, you should try to avoid moving too much around, if anything 
at all, because doing so will end up changing URIs and that breaks 
bookmarks, links, etc.  If you do have to, make sure you set up 
appropriate redirects (using HTTP headers, never use  refresh)


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Terrence Wood]

Joseph R. B. Taylor:

How do YOU set up your directories?


/
/index.html <-- rinse and repeat as needed or process server side.
/images/ <-- content images only
/ui/ <-- everything in here, or split into the following if required:
/ui/tpl/ <-- templates includes
/ui/img/ <-- self explanatory
/ui/css/ <-- ditto
/ui/js/ <-- ditto

or

/ui/optionalthemename/ <-- everything in here... ditto above.

I usually use some sort of server language and mod_rewrite to shorten 
urls to /ui on the client side.



kind regards
--
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Geoff Deering]

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:


Greetings Friends,

A topic I haven't seen posted here yet, that I feel is relevant when 
it comes to working to have a standard way of doing things.


When it comes to website directory structure, I'm curious to know how 
you gurus out there set up yours.


I myself, have been using this set up:

root web folder
-images
-main.htm
-events.htm
-bio.htm
etc, etc

Recently I was hired to do some cleanup on a site I hadn't built and 
the directory was set up like:


root web folder
-main
--images
--main.htm
-events
--images
--events.htm
-bio
--images
--bio.htm
etc, etc

Looking at these two layouts, I first notice that the 2nd layout has 
multiple images folders, one for each page in fact.  This sort of 
organizes the images better, but now there's images all over the place.


How do YOU set up your directories?



Hi Joseph,

I was nearly not going to reply to this as I am not a guru of any type 
or qualification, so I didn't think it was addressed to me, but here is 
a non guru reply;


I think that before you address this as a basic design issue, you need 
to look at the web site as a whole, what is it, how how it may possibly 
evolve, who contributes to the content, how are users managed, how is 
the web site categorised into topics, and all the rest of it.  Once you 
have done that you may find A may be more appropriate than B or visa 
versa.  For instance, if you have a lot of groups contributing content, 
then B may be a better way of managing the user permissions, it may also 
allow a section to be moved more easily or run and developed on a local 
file system, whereas A and modifications of A may be more suited to a 
smaller (even a large) site that do not require complex content 
management rules.


I also would like to be able to discuss usability issues with standards 
based developers on this list, but maybe that is a topic for another 
list or forum.


Regards
Geoff Deering
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Jay Gilmore]

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:



How do YOU set up your directories?


Joe,

The way I have set up directories is as follows:

/root_web_folder
 /_images
 /_images/content
 /_images/content/content_image.jpg...etc.(photos, illustrations etc.)
 /_images/layout
 /_images/layout/layout_image.jpg...etc.(backgrounds, buttons etc.)

 /_includes/
 /_includes/all.inc.php

 /_scripts
 /_scripts/all.js

 /_styles
 /_styles/common.css
 /_styles/IElte6.css
 /_styles/IE7B2P.css

 /main_section_one/
 /main_section_one/index.php...etc.
 /main_section_one/all_other_section_pages.php

 /main_section_two/
 /main_section_two/index.php...etc.
 /main_section_one/all_other_section_pages.php

 /index.php...etc.

As you can see, I keep most images, stylesheets, scripts, and includes 
in  separate directories with an underscore prefix so they appear in 
directory listings before the main-section directories. I always make 
main section directories and have an index page so I can use relative 
directory paths for main section links as opposed to some filename in 
the root web directory. I also separate my images into content and 
layout so that when I am changing or updating templates or site themes I 
don't accidentally delete or lose the content images.


I don't know if this is a standard--other than for me. I would love to 
see other views and examples of this.


BTW I am aware that it is not a best practice in php security to leave 
the includes folder in the web root folder.


All the best,

Jay

--
Jay Gilmore
Developer / Consultant
SmashingRed Web & Marketing
P] 902.529.0651
E] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U] http://www.smashingred.com
B] http://www.smashingred.com/blog
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Website Directory Structure - Best Practice

[Joseph R. B. Taylor]

Greetings Friends,

A topic I haven't seen posted here yet, that I feel is relevant when it 
comes to working to have a standard way of doing things.


When it comes to website directory structure, I'm curious to know how 
you gurus out there set up yours.


I myself, have been using this set up:

root web folder
-images
-main.htm
-events.htm
-bio.htm
etc, etc

Recently I was hired to do some cleanup on a site I hadn't built and the 
directory was set up like:


root web folder
-main
--images
--main.htm
-events
--images
--events.htm
-bio
--images
--bio.htm
etc, etc

Looking at these two layouts, I first notice that the 2nd layout has 
multiple images folders, one for each page in fact.  This sort of 
organizes the images better, but now there's images all over the place.


How do YOU set up your directories?

Joseph R. B. Taylor
Sites by Joe, LLC
http://sitesbyjoe.com
(609)335-3076
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**