On Thursday 29 March 2001 01:43, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Of course. Its just that with URL rewriting in Apache you can make the URL *look like* it's a static page even though it's actually generated on the fly by JSP or CGI or whatever. Also, this way the URL stays permanent even if you choose to switch from JSP to SQP ...
People often don't think of things like this... more web sites should be using URI's and not exposing implementation details (file extensions like .jsp or .htm or .html, internal file paths, etc.) in their URL's. That way even major internal re-organizations won't affect bookmarks. And they end up with easier to remember paths as well.
> Also, http://www.squeakland.org/projects/games/someproject.001.html looks > much better ...
Actually, I'd prefer http://squeakland.org/projects/games/someproject
* I don't need to know your server name (www.) (even more off topic: why do people do this even today, when routers can handle these internal details? It should be enough that I'm coming in on port 80 and asking for a particular URI) (and even if they have to do it, why use something that's so ponderous to pronounce ("www.") instead of something like "web.")?
* I don't need to know the revision (.001), necessarily (though it could also be available by version number as well). This could get me the most recent version (if I wanted to refer to a specific version I could use e.g. http://squeakland.org/projects/games/someproject.001 )
* I don't need to know your file extension (.html) (that's what MIME Content-type headers are for!)