I think that the extension should match the content, it's more clear. For a json object I'm expecting a .json, an xml should have an xml extension and so on. So for the mobile view I think the best is to have a .mobi extension, but this is IMHO.
Also using the .mobile.html could be viable, because a mobile view is substantially an html file. For me it's ok to have .mobile.html extension 2011/8/30 Massimo Di Pierro <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com>: > Unless there is a strong objection I will modify the code in trunk to > use index.mobile.html > > view = '.'.join(view.split().insert(-1,'mobile')) > > On Aug 30, 2:13 am, Bruno Rocha <rochacbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Good point. Couldn't you also do something like index.mobi.html or >> > index.html.mobi? I don't think these view names would necessarily have to >> > be exposed as URLs -- they just need to be used server side to render the >> > page appropriately. >> >> It is only a semantic issue, because the pattern for any API is terminating >> with the extension format. .json, .xml, .csv . it is more elegant IMO than >> x.json.mobi
