I have always viewed index.html as a special case. When navigating to the root 
of a site - l.a.o/log4j/2.x/ - should be sufficient as it should default to 
index.html. However, the “real” url includes index.html. 

Other pages should always be whatever.html IMO. 

Ralph

> On Apr 20, 2024, at 1:17 PM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

Reply via email to