Hi, I scanned our https://logging.apache.org/ website and found out that the internal hyperlinks between our pages are not consistent. For example links to:
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/ might appear in hyperlinks with an URI path of: * `/log4j/2.x` (which causes a 301 HTTP redirect), * `/log4j/2.x/`, * `/log4j/2.x/index.html`. This lack of uniformity can cause several problems: * search engines might treat those 3 links as equivalent, but not necessarily. * if an `index.html` file is moved, we need to provide a redirect for all 3 alternatives: a recent example is `/log4j/2.x/log4j-1.2-api/index.html` that was moved to `/log4j2/2.x/log4j-1.2-api.html`. * for the rare people that actually look at the URL of a page, it doesn't seem coherent. So I would propose to adopt only one of the 3 alternatives and stick to it as much as possible? Which one should we choose? The simplest one (`/log4j/2.x/index.html`) does not require a Web server and can be viewed locally and can be viewed using the `file:` scheme in a browser. However I find it less elegant than `/log4j/2.x/`. Antora is probably able to generate both versions through some configuration option, so choosing `/log4j/2.x/` does not preclude the possibility to generate a different version to check the web site locally. Another canonicalization we might apply regards trailing `.html` extensions in the URL. The current website supports both: * `/log4j2/log4j-api`, * `/log4j2/log4j-api.html`. through `mod_negotiation`. Should we use the version with a trailing `.html` or without it? The `https://apache.org/` website hides the `.html` extension in most the links. Piotr
