The free version of ISAPI Rewrite works wonderfully for friendly URLs such as:
http://www.mydomain.com/dyn/something/product/432/category/8
instead of:
http://www.mydomain.com/something.cfm?product=432category=8
Using the httpd.ini rule:
[ISAPI_Rewrite]
RepeatLimit 20
# A note
RewriteRule
All in all, dynamic URLS should be mapped to static ones, and this mapping
should be be done by your marketing department
while I agree dynamic urls should be mapped to static ones and that search engine positioning is a whole other chapter, why would marketing be the ones to decide if it is
Whether shallow directory trees containing lots of files and more
descriptive, structured filenames are better than deep heirarchical
structures with fewer files per folder and shorter names is an ancient
and endless debate, so I ain't going there :-).
i wasnt talking about the shallow vs deep
While we're on the subject - does anyone know of any good
resources/mailings lists - I've been out of the SEO loop for a while
I second that... Any references to mapping dynamic urls to static ones?
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Speaking of friendly URLs and CMS solutions, I am looking to implement the FarCry CMS for a client and am wondering about the plugin for creating friendly URLs.
Does anyone know if this is something I can set up later on, after I have the design and application working?
Gabriel
[Todays Threads]
Mod_rewrite is your best friend, if you've got Apache.Someone has
mentioned a port for IIS in the form of an ISAPI filter, I belive, but I
don't know.
I've had wonderful success with ISAPI_Rewrite, although I don't *think* it's an actual port of mod_rewrite. Can't say how useful the freebie
I dunno... if you just use an index.cfm and put a ? in your url's,
wouldn't that have roughly equivalent effect? For instance, my blog:
http://www.turnkey.to/ontap/blog/?20040107
Not that there aren't other uses for mod rewrite or isapi rewrite, but
just in terms of mapping virtual paths to real
Referring to URL's or URI's
(assumed to mean Unique Resource Identifier as opposed to Unique
Resource Locator)
Uniform Resource Identifier. Personally, I'm fine with the old-fashioned URL... it's in the name of my business, after all. :) But when it comes to technical discussions, I try to
Though I'm not sure why
it's such an issue...
Isaac,
It isn't, IMO... not across the board. It's just one more piece of the URI design puzzle.
FWIW, while I've come to increasingly respect the tenets of orthodox hypertext religion, I'm far from devout. And I have no desire to preach at people
Just out of curiosity, but why is the URL awful?
Bearing in mind that I create ugly URIs as often as anyone, that I am simply answering a question, and that I don't want to pick on someone else's work:
(1) URIs should describe the resource they identify, not the technology used to create it.
Roger thanks for the excellent critique. Referring to URL's or URI's (assumed to mean Unique Resource Identifier as opposed to Unique Resource Locator)as unique identifiers (or primary Key) is just what I needed to hear to broaden how I was conceptualizing the problem.Your critique helps me think
Just out of curiosity, but why is the URL awful?
Bearing in mind that I create ugly URIs as often as
anyone, that I am simply answering a question, and that I
don't want to pick on someone else's work:
(1) URIs should describe the resource they identify, not
the technology used to create
12 matches
Mail list logo
