Subject:
|
Re: URL Style (was Re: New box cars)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:08:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@io*Spamless*.com
|
Viewed:
|
625 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:33:54 GMT, "SEBarile" <steve.e.barile@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > steve.bar.home.att.net
> Hey! I can do that, too! See:
> <http://home.att.net/~blisses/>
> or
> <http://blisses.home.att.net/>
I confused myself and got my hopes up, until I realized this is an ATT.NET
thing, which won't necessarily work with my page. Testing...nope. IO.COM
makes its customers pay for virtual domains.
> Quick question for anyone/everyone: is one of these URL's "better" than
> the other? Technically or style-wise?
I like either one. I'm more concerned about ramifications about having two
completely different URLs for each page, though. It could have interesting
effects with caching and bookmarks if you're not careful. Figure out which
you will use and never use the other one.
My .02 euro...
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: URL Style (was Re: New box cars)
|
| (...) Good point about the caching. I was thinking about that yesterday, as I was testing the domain-only version of the URL, and traversing my pages. A glance at the browser's URL display confirmed that nothing was back-translating the URL. Which (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | URL Style (was Re: New box cars)
|
| (...) Hey! I can do that, too! See: (URL) or (URL) Cool! Quick question for anyone/everyone: is one of these URL's "better" than the other? Technically or style-wise? Steve (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
