 | | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) A different way of naming pages that seems wrong to EVERY SINGLE person I've talked to. Doesn't that tell you something? If the UI is counterintuitive, change the UI if possible, don't try to change the users. In this case, changing the UI is (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) Different, yes... you could even say "unconventional", which is what Tom is saying. Unconventional is not alway "wrong". But when you break a convention you should have a good reason to do so. Users not needing to remember to type .ftx on the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Heh :) (...) Ok. (...) Alright, I get it. -Tim (25 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) If it were a directory, it would have a traliing slash and then it would also be a shorthand URL for the index page of that directory. I think you're thinking about it too hard. If a URL has a trailing slash, it's a directory (or the index (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7uH6z.4K8@lugnet.com... (...) Cool. (...) Oh, ok, I read the statement wrong then. Silly question - but I feel like asking it anyways :) Why is it a page called images versus a directory (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
