Paul Bolger wrote:
As for mangling the names to get the right order - it makes me shudder!!
Although I've found for big sites it's not a bad idea to use the ISO
date-of-creation/page-subject-event as the first part of your file
name anyway, particularly for content such as news stories, press
releases, articles.
If your page titles and headings are being used properly the filenames
should be of minor importance to the audience.
I agree, antoher concern is that not everyone speaks English, I'm amazed
at the internationalised sites that stick with English page names in
URLs - what is the point?
I tend to use SSI's for nav. I also use CSS to filter the output of
those includes. For instance the developer manuals would be
class="dev" and in the user site .dev would have a display:none value.
That's if I needed the the two lists completely merged into user, dev,
user, dev etc.
The problem with the 'CSS to exclude stuff' approach is that you are
using bandwidth to send informaition that is not being displayed. This
may not be significant in low traffic sites (like my own). But for
something like the Apache sites it mounts up very quickly, that is 1
million lots of 100 extra bytes adds up to lots of bandwidth.
The reduction of bandwitdh use is one of the goals of the project.
I agree, to a point. If you take a look at the actual code weight of
doing a trick like that - assuming that it's laid out properly, as an
unordered list - it doesn't come close to the sort of bloat which a
WYSIWYG web authoring program can generate. Dreamweaver can turn four
rollover buttons into three screens of code.
Yes, but that's comparing apples to oranges. Forrest is not a WYSIWYG
bloat system and if you feed content into it that is generated with such
a system it strips much of the bloat. Every byte counts.
...but this segues nicely into another Forrest issue I think we should
be looking at: cleaning up the html output, and probably attempting to
make it xhtml.
I think another thread is called for.
+1
Prior to the other thread starting I'll say:
I was hoping this would be part of the XHTML2 move, but that seems to
have completely stalled as it is constantly waiting for some other thing
to happen first. This is another good reason to just get on with it.
Ross
