Volkan, I completely agree with you. I prefer to review my site changes either in target/site or by doing a deploy to a local directly. In both cases I use the file protocol to view it.
Ralph > On May 8, 2024, at 5:55 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > All non-default `html_extension_style` options require to run a web server. > > In my opinion, > > - Being able to view `target/site` with just using my browser and > nothing else is super convenient. The development experience is much > smoother. > - None of the advantages you cited for switching from `/foo.html` to > `/foo`, `/foo/index.html`, etc. is worth the trouble/complexity it will > introduce. > > In short, I am not inclined to change the current path naming scheme. That > said, I don't want to sound bossy. I would appreciate it if others can join > the discussion with their arguments. > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 10:22 AM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 at 20:19, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> 1. Could you show us the Antora configuration option you mentioned >>> and how we can use it to achieve what you propose? >> >> I found the perfect Antora setting: `html_extension_style`[1]. >> >> The option I am proposing corresponds to the `drop` style: >> >> * a `/foo/bar.html` file will be referenced as `foo/bar`, >> * a `/foo/index.html` file will be referenced as `foo/`. >> >> The `indexify` style is very similar, but it always uses a trailing >> `/` for the file names. >> >> I see both pros and cons for the two styles: >> >> ## `indexify` style >> >> Pros: >> * Doesn't make a difference between "normal" HTML files and folders. >> If we transform `foo.html` into `foo/index.html` and add subpages, the >> URL remains always `foo/`. >> * We restore the old URLs like `/log4j/2.x/log4j-api/` that became >> `/log4j/2.x/log4j-api.html`. >> * Works on every HTTP server (even Python's). >> >> Cons: >> * We need a lot of HTTP redirects like >> `/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration.html` -> >> `/log4j/2.x/manual/configuration/` >> >> ## `drop` style >> >> Pros: >> * We don't need redirects for the current pages, only a global rewrite >> rule that states that we prefer to omit the `.html` suffix. >> * It is shorter than the `indexify` style. >> * It is easier to implement on already compiled pages: no need to >> move/rename files. >> >> Cons: >> * If `foo.html` becomes `foo/index.html` the canonical URL changes >> from `foo` to `foo/`. However the redirect from the old to the new URL >> is done automatically by most servers. >> * It doesn't work with all web servers, but it works with Apache HTTP >> Server. >> >> What do you think about adopting the `drop` style? >> >> Piotr >> >> PS: Javadoc also can use the `drop` style. See e.g. Jakarta drops the >> `.html` (and apparently capital letters) from its Javadoc. >> >> [1] >> https://docs.antora.org/antora/latest/playbook/urls-html-extension-style/ >> [2] >> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/servlet/6.0/apidocs/jakarta.servlet/jakarta/servlet/filter >>
