On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 14:26, Sean Gilligan wrote: > Allen Gilliland wrote: > > I was always just talking about using vanity urls for incoming requests, > > not for url rewriting of outputed html. I don't have any real desire for > > rewriting urls on their way out. > > IMO, the new, improved, vanity, etc. URLs should be the native URLs for > the various pages/resources on the system, so no rewriting would be > required. Having the native URLs of the system be simple and consistent > (i.e. not different after a redirect or following a link) is important > for search engine ranking, bookmarking, feed urls, etc.
yep. > > It would be preferable not to rewrite the URLs on the way out. Ideally, > they would be the vanity/improved URLs from the start. yep. > > Additionally the URL arrangement should be as configurable as possible > with the default being backwards-compatible with the current solution. > There should also be support for existing blogs that want to migrate to > a new scheme (redirects and/or forwards.) yep. i think i probably used the term "vanity urls" inappropriately. i agree that we want this to be *the* url scheme. -- Allen > > -- Sean >
