Subject:
|
Re: Stick in the mud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:40:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[mattdm@]saynotospam[mattdm.org]
|
Viewed:
|
1338 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> and SRC= attributes of tags and any other extensions (including embedded
> JavaScript code) which might use relative URLs, since /foo/bar is in the
> /foo/ directory and /foo/bar/ is in the /foo/bar/ directory? And if so,
Ah, that makes sense. Really, in order for the proposed ("/foo/bar" exactly
equals "/foo/bar/") scheme to work, there needs to be _no_ default
index.html file. Or rather, directory index files need to be special in some
way. (Just like you'd never do "cat /usr").
That arguably leads to even more of a mess.
That all said, I still think it's probably rational to do the redirects as
is current standard practice.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) Do you mean that if a browser requested some page /foo/bar which didn't exist, but a page /foo/bar/ existed, that it would be nice if the server output the content of /foo/bar/ when it was requested to serve /foo/bar ? If so, wouldn't that (...) (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
|
|
|
|
