 | | 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 (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Sorry, your choices are the counterintuitive ones. 1) I don't know what universe you live in, but in MINE, the bulk of sites on the web translate (URL) to (URL) Member pages are the obvious problem here - you designed them wrong from the start, and (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I don't think it's about being "right" or "wrong." The reason that it's "counterintuitive" relative to the rest of the Internet is that 99.999999% of websites don't let you create non-index webpages that don't use filename extensions. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) But as Larry has argued before, whether YOU think you are in the right or not, you are going counterintuitive to the vast majority of the Internet. There ARE times where you should just get off the high horse and do something for the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) But why? Is there a load on the server which makes trailing slashless URLs incredibly inefficient? I find that what is in place to stop those slashless URLs from being forwarded is quite a significant irritation (and others have told me that (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I've been thinking along those lines too due to this thread, and recalled a "Raft" by Stephen Baxter in which gravity is much stronger than in our universe. If I remember correctly it was quite a good read, although I'm not a good enough (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) You mean there are webservers that don't automatically forward trailing- slashless URLs to trailing-slashed URLs by default, and have a configurable error page? (...) I thought basically all webservers did that automatically. That's why I had (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) The Creationist movement is primarily U.S. Protestant driven. Not exclusively, of course. Perhaps it's part of the insular nature of the U.S., especially the interior of the country. Europe has been through this all before. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) You're right. *Now* I know what I dislike about all of them! Thanks! I have the overweening pride to prefer eternal damnation to groveling to a god that is not worthy of me. (...) It's indeed irrefutable for an all powerful/creator of the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Point taken but to continue splitting this particular hair, I agree with "everything" but not "creation" except inasmuch as the explanation is "god created (the starting point of) the universe", which is fine, since it's no better or worse an (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
