To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9125
9124  |  9126
Subject: 
Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:37:07 GMT
Viewed: 
1510 times
  
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 http://www.foo.com/bar/bletch to  http://www.foo.com/bar/bletch/
2) Member pages are the obvious problem here - you designed them wrong from the
start, and are covering by breaking a "convention" used by the majority of sites.


Todd Lehman wrote:

> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > 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 convenience of the majority.
> 
> 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.  Naturally in those cases there's no ambiguity between
> 
>    http://www.foo.com/bar/bletch
> and
>    http://www.foo.com/bar/bletch/
> 
> because an actual non-index page would have to be written with a filename
> extension as (for example)
> 
>    http://www.foo.com/bar/bletch.html
> 
> But here, there is actually ambiguity between the two because there's no
> .html extension for member pages.  Thus, the server *actually doesn't know
> and can't tell* which of the two you meant.  It can (and arguably should)
> make a guess, but it won't necessarily be correct.
> 
> I would have put in autoforwarding a long time ago in cases where /foo/bar
> doesn't exist and /foo/bar/ does exist, except that by the time it gets to
> the point where it can easily check, it has already output the normal HTTP
> headers and thus it's too late to output a 'Location:' header.  But I'll
> figure out some trick around this.
> 
> --Todd

--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs



Message has 1 Reply:
  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 (26 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  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. (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

45 Messages in This Thread:













Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR