Hi Igor,

on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:11:17 +0100, you wrote:

> On 05/01/2008, Janko Mivšek 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.

Except when you ask your platform browser "Save as..." or "Open with ..."  
then it becomes convenient and relevant ;-)

Of course no web server can know such situations on a per-request basis  
and provide Content-Disposition response header.

/Klaus