Subject:
|
Re: Stick in the mud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:07:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1144 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> On most servers, the URL /foo/bar doesn't mean anything because most pages
> end with .html or some other filename extension. Here, /foo/bar is the name
> of an actual page. Thus, /foo/bar and /foo/bar/ are two different (and both
> valid) URLs, the latter being short for /foo/bar/index . Because that is
> probably confusing, however, it might be better to have /foo/bar not be
> allowed to exist if /foo/bar/ already exists.
What filesystem allows file bar and directory bar in the foo directory?
The only way to utilize the above hypothetical URL's is to use mod-rewrite
(or similar). You could easially disable slash-optional rewrite when
a mod-rewrite rule is triggered.
KL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) Yeah, I've been wondering this too. It's pretty longstanding practice in unix that "ls /usr" and "ls /usr/" are going to get me exactly the same thing. For that matter, "stat /usr" and "stat /usr/" both get me the same thing.... And I'm (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) What makes you think users "forget" or are "lazy" if they don't enter a trailing slash? Do you honestly believe that the majority of users even know they they "should" put in the trailing slash? (...) You may have the technical slant on your (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
