|
|
Posted by d on 01/27/06 02:52
"Michael Winter" <m.winter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D2aCf.9698$wl.2@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> 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.
I don't code sites for just your average user. If you're selling your
company, or indeed a product, to people who know, then things like this
speak very highly of the attention you pay to your work. It's like making a
great watch, then using bits of old band-aids for a strap.
>> 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.
Now you have it :) I moved from the .html-only set-up to my own site
engine, which does indeed do away with extensions altogether.
> [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.
I did. I hit two identical servers, one set to parse html via php, and one
not, repeatedly with sets of 150 requests (not just once, but many times in
a row), and recorded the times. The times fluctuated between the
html-parsing server being quicker, and the non-html-parsing server being
quicker.
>> [...] 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.
But once you have code great HTML, great CSS, great PHP, and you server is
quick, smooth and working well, it doesn't make sense to just stop making
your site better. I won't stop until my site is as perfect as possible. My
site engine uses ONLY human-readable urls. No digits, no ridiculous query
strings (in fact no query strings at all), and all can be interpreted and
even re-written by the user if they want.
> [snip]
>
> Mike
dave
> --
> Michael Winter
> Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|