On 05/01/2008, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> > why you suffixing URL's with '.html' ?
> >
> > As for me, this URL:
> >    http://squeak.aidaweb.si:8000/class/AidaBrowserMethod/method/loop:
> > looks much better than this:
> >    http://squeak.aidaweb.si:8000/class/AidaBrowserMethod/method/loop:.html
> > and for class-side methods something like:
> >    http://squeak.aidaweb.si:8000/class/<class name>/class/<method selector>
>
> Because .html shows that this resource is presented in a HTML format and
> not PDF or .st (which can actually be useful for fileouts in our case).
>
> I know that current fashion coming from RoR and REST camp is to have
> urls without extension but I'm don't like that, because it is against
> the original spirit of the web. I could understand that this is kind of
> rebellion against "marketing" extensions like .asp. .jsp and .php but
> then, why they just don't go back to good old .html?
>
Never heard that putting '.html' is for a good spirit.
In my view, when URL terminates with .html extension it's shows that
current page are plain file (with .html extension), and .php, .jsp are
content generated by corresponding engine. Also there is '.htm'
extension used by M$ people..
In spirit of HTTP you may use any extension in URL, you just need to
specify correct content type in HTTP header, the rest is not relevant.


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.