On 8/17/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ahh ... very true, but I would actually like to see us move away from using > page names in our standard urls. AFAIK there is no reason to ever need a > page name in a standard url because you can access everything you want from > the root url of your blog ... > > (assuming new 2.0 conventions) > > /page/bloghandle (homepage) > /page/bloghandle/20050817 (some date based archive) > /page/bloghandle?entry=<anchor> (permalink) > /page/bloghandle?cat=<category> (category based archive) > > what else would you need? now, i'm not saying there aren't cases where the > page name would be required, but i *am* saying that you shouldn't need the > page name of your default page. the default page should *always* be accessed > as /page/bloghandle *not* /page/bloghandle/pagename.
You need the page names for when you add *other* pages to your blog. Most people don't use this feature, but I do: http://raibledesigns.com/page/rd/archives http://raibledesigns.com/page/rd/contact http://raibledesigns.com/page/rd/about Matt > > -- Allen > > > On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 11:29, Matt Raible wrote: > > I like having the ability to rename as /page/username/home seems more > > appropriate to me than /page/username/Weblog. > > > > My $0.02, > > > > Matt > > > > On 8/17/05, Lance Lavandowska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm surprised Dave has chimed in on the "not renamable" part, as he > > > renamed his Weblog page (I haven't looked to see if he changed it > > > back). > > > > > > Lance > > > > > > On 8/17/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, Lance had some good thoughts about how the decorator works, but > > > > nobody else has chimed in on the idea of standardizing the 4 main > > > > templates. > > > > > > > > Basically they would work the same way they do today, except that they > > > > would be (1) required and (2) not renamable. > > > > > > > > -- Allen > > > > >
