On Friday 03 May 2002 12:44, Diana Shannon wrote: >. . . > www.apache.org/cocoon/faqs/02050308 >. . .
I like numbers for FAQ items, or maybe structured numbers like "faqs/03.0200/faq-03.200.html" meaning section 3 FAQ 200 (see below about the redundancy in the filename). But for larger documents I much prefer descriptive names, which must be well chosen. Worst case, if a name is changed you may leave a document with the old name pointing to the new one. Problem with non-descriptive filenames is when someone saves the page to disk (or prints it to PDF), loses the path and gets a document name like "20020423.html". In this case "cocoon-rocket-launch-howto.html" is much better IMHO, even if there is some redundancy between path and filename (using - or _ as name separator, whatever). > 2. I assume we need to continue the use of extensions for static site > versions >. . . yes, AND for lame browsers (that I won't name here ;-) that need a file extension to know that a document is XML or HTML. -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
