|
|
Posted by Michael Winter on 01/26/06 22:12
On 26/01/2006 17:43, d wrote:
> Where to begin.
It would be nice if you started by not top-posting, but I don't think
that's a requirement of this particular group.
> I don't want .php files on the end of my files, because when the user
> gets them, they don't have any PHP in them.
Given that the average user isn't really aware of what HTML is, I
wouldn't say that that was much of a reason to reconfigure a server in
the way you'd like.
> That .PHP is there for my benefit, not theirs, which is unwanted.
If you were really concerned about this, wouldn't the best solution be
to remove 'extensions' from URLs entirely? If you want to relieve the
user of this 'burden', then hiding the mechanics should be the ultimate
goal.
[snip]
> My tests have shown, to me at least, that the performance hit is a
> myth.
Perhaps, but you haven't actually stated what these tests specifically
entailed so no-one else can perform them and reproduce your results, or
even judge how relevant the tests are to their own circumstances.
> [...] It's a more than reasonable trade-off for having a decent site,
> with tidy URLs.
A decent site is determined by many things, but URLs have a relatively
low priority (usability and content clearly come first). Length and the
extent to which they can be remembered and transcribed are the most
important factors and 'extensions' don't impact any of these
significantly at all.
[snip]
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|