Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
I'd lose the php - either have no extension or use an .htaccess file to direct .html to .php if necessary (or configure the server accordingly, if possible).
If at some point down the line the client moves over to, say, ASP.Net hosting, all the URLs will suddenly break. The URL shouldn't give details of the server technology in use as that is liable to change. The .html extension is OK as ultimately, whether the page is a static file or a dynamically generated response, what the client actually receives is HTML.
This also means you can surface the same resource with different representations:
/bassoon.html for browsers,
/bassoon.xml for Ajax, mashups or Atom feed readers,
/bassoon.rss for RSS feed readers,
/bassoon.json for Ajax and mashups,
/bassoon.fbml for Facebook applications
which increases the number of ways in which the content can be reused and distributed so as to ultimately direct traffic to the business.
One other thing: it's probably worthwhile (at last) making judicious use of Microformats, as companies like Yahoo (which uses them extensively in its own properties) are starting to take account of them when indexing content - they're potentially a pretty big win for a trivial amount of additional effort
I'd lose the php - either have no extension or use an .htaccess file to direct .html to .php if necessary (or configure the server accordingly, if possible).
If at some point down the line the client moves over to, say, ASP.Net hosting, all the URLs will suddenly break. The URL shouldn't give details of the server technology in use as that is liable to change. The .html extension is OK as ultimately, whether the page is a static file or a dynamically generated response, what the client actually receives is HTML.
This also means you can surface the same resource with different representations:
/bassoon.html for browsers,
/bassoon.xml for Ajax, mashups or Atom feed readers,
/bassoon.rss for RSS feed readers,
/bassoon.json for Ajax and mashups,
/bassoon.fbml for Facebook applications
which increases the number of ways in which the content can be reused and distributed so as to ultimately direct traffic to the business.
Is it easy to have no extension? I have gone PHP because I had an aweful time getting the .htaccess thing to work to enable PHP in HTML pages.
I like the look of filenames in URIs with no extensions - me want!
"Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk
Comment