 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) With very high accuracy, yes. (...) Yes. (...) No, there *is* a page called 'images' there! You can click that URL above and go there. (...) Because that's not the URL syntax for FTX pages. Extensions aren't used -- they're useless baggage. (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) counterintuitive relative to most sites is precisely because of the above. (...) "Wrong"? LOL. (...) It's just a different way of naming pages. --Todd (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7uDtL.IHw@lugnet.com... (...) Any way to differenitate between the two? (...) Hmm...could it? Also, if you're trying to eliminate links to slashless directories, why not put a notice on the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ file (...) Durrrr, that should say, "and at the same time a *file*"... --Todd (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I wouldn't say "incredibly inefficient," but definitely wasteful and inefficient. It's no big deal for occasional hand-typed URLs, but it's extremely annoying for links. (...) I agree completely, and in the case of hand-typed URLs (where (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
