It appears that Google uses the . character as a word separator.
Therefore, either of the URLs should be fine.
-bp
Brian Pontarelli wrote:
Piero Sartini wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007 23:49:33 schrieb Jim Cushing:
For different renderings/mimetypes, I think it'd make sense, if
possible, to use a dot-extension (e.g., "foo.pdf" instead of "foo/
pdf"), since this is a common and well understood convention.
Is there a problem with search engines if we have dots in a
"directory" name? -> /foo.pdf/id/4
The other way is to append the .pdf to the parameter 4 - but that's
not that nice IMHO: /foo/id/4.pdf
I'm not sure, but I'll find out. I know most extensions are ignored by
search engines in general, but I believe it is only when they are at
the end of the URL and not embedded, but I could be mistaken. I'll see
what I can find out and get back to you.
-bp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
