 | | 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)
|
