In static site generator lingo, it's a better convention to generate 
`index.html` so that we have "pretty URLs".

  * Ugly URL: `example.com/foo.html`. The ".html" is needed to be added in the 
URL.
  * Pretty URL: `example.com/foo/index.html`. Now that URL can be accessed 
using `example.com/foo/` or `example.com/foo`. Of course this works only if the 
HTML pages are on a server. If you try to access offline using `file://` 
protocol, you will need the full path `foo/index.html`.



So there are pros and cons of both ugly and pretty URLs. Good thing is that 
it's pretty easy to convert the Ugly URLs to Pretty URLs using a Nimscript task 
[like 
this](https://github.com/kaushalmodi/nim_config/blob/04f8665ac062868605f15e223c4e84bb8eee4050/config.nims#L377-L389).
 

Reply via email to