Unless the file type were particularly important, then the more generic
form, non-specific form is certainly better for a whole bunch of
reasons.

And, not ignoring implementation, if you're on Apache, then I would
think that mod_rewrite would do the job very nicely with not too much
work.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Managing an institutional web site 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Value of file extensions in URLs
> 
> See
> 
> Cool URIs don't change
> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
> 
> Technology-specific URIs should generally be avoided - to 
> avoid lock-in to particular server-side architecture/software.
> 
> So your move to the second form of URI is definitely a good idea.
> 
> Note that you need to think about the peristence of your 
> currently published URIs, i.e. setting up redirects from old 
> form to new form.
> 
> Andy
> --
> Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
> [log in to unmask]
> +44 (0)1225 474319
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Managing an institutional web site 
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Higson
> > Sent: 26 July 2007 12:07
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Value of file extensions in URLs
> > 
> > Trying to open up a debate: Recently I've been considering 
> whether we 
> > should drop file extensions from URLs on our web site. For example:
> > 
> > www.aber.ac.uk/foo/bar.php
> > 
> > would become just:
> > 
> > www.aber.ac.uk/foo/bar
> > 
> > Ignoring for now how this would be implemented, do you 
> believe having 
> > the ".php" on the end of the file gives any useful 
> information to the 
> > user?
> > 
> > My argument for dropping the ".php" is the user doesn't 
> really care if 
> > we are serving from a PHP file (and if they do care, they probably 
> > know how to look in the http headers). By using the 
> extension in the 
> > URL we are exposing an implementation detail that isn't really 
> > relevant.
> > 
> > However, maybe users familiar with the Windows filesystem 
> look at URLs 
> > with an extension as a "file page" and URLs without as a "folder 
> > page", thereby using the URL to discern a page's place in the 
> > hierarchy. The majority of institutional web sites have the 
> extension 
> > in the URL - is this by design, or a side effect of implementation?
> > 
> > Do you think this distinction between "folders" and "files" 
> > really exists in user's minds on the web, or are there just 
> pages that 
> > form a tree-like hierarchy delimited by slashes?
> > 
> > Do you think hiding implementation details like which programming 
> > language we are using really makes things simpler for end 
> users, or do 
> > they not really care about the URLs anyway?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jim Higson          [log in to unmask]
> >  
> > Datblygydd Rhaglenni Gwe
> > Gwasanwaethau Dylunio, Argraffu a Phost Prifysgol Cymrul Aberystwyth
> >  
> > Web Applications Developer
> > Design, Print and Postal Services
> > University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> > 
> 


*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*****************************************************************************************