"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > > --Apache-- should treat such things as order-independent! I > concur 100%!
It does. > The issue isn't -with- Apache, it's with how legible or usable > our doc files are in the absense of Apache. No, I don't believe that's the case. You seem to think that accessing the documents with the file: scheme is the issue; it isn't. That has never been a goal; it has *always* been assumed that they'd be read through the auspices of a running Apache server. The issue is whether mod_negotiation is active or not. In the past, we always had a "foo.html", and any translations were added as "foo.html.fr". A request for "foo.html" would therefore always find *something*, possibly the translated file if that was preferred. Now that we have discarded "foo.html" and replaced it with "foo.html.en", mod_negotiation is *always* required in order to find a file. Okey, fine. At least the base name is something IOTTMCO, namely "foo.html". Naming things "foo.fr.html" would require that all those links be changed to just "foo", which IMHO violates the Principle of Least Astonishment. For one thing, it will break hundreds of thousands of links already in existence on the Web. For another, people frequently tend to add ".html" unless the URL ends in a slash. And finally, it will collide with directories and other files with no suffix at all. In addition, "name.content-type.language.charset.encoding" is a perfectly reasonable and rational ordering of metdata, in most-to-least significance order. What it is, how it's presented, et cetera. I think leaving things the way they are is best all round -- but when things are mailed, an extra rename should be taken so that mail agents know how to type the attachment. THAT'S the only time I think we need to worry about the naming. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/> Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/> "Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
