On 16 Jun., 15:05, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sunday 14 June 2009 06:12:32 donquixote wrote:
>
> > Nice (i):
> >http://mysite.org/members/emil
> >http://mysite.org/members/emil/contact
>
> > Not nice (ii):
> >http://mysite.org/members/emil/
> >http://
On 17 Jun., 03:14, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:04 am, donquixote wrote:
>
> > I would still be interested to read some arguments in favour of the
> > trailing slash. From a user perspective, it seems that without is
> > better.
>
> The big issue wi
I think the multiple slashes are a quite theoretical problem.
- The server might remove them anyway
- People will know that this is a typo.
The only reason why I talked about multiple slashes was for the sake
of completeness: If we discuss a remove_slash solution, then why not
clean up the comple
elopers actually use relative urls without a
base tag, where they can take advantage of the slash.
On Jun 17, 3:14 am, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:04 am, donquixote wrote:
>
> > I would still be interested to read some arguments in favour of the
> > trailing slash. From a u
I would still be interested to read some arguments in favour of the
trailing slash. From a user perspective, it seems that without is
better.
But of course, I don't want to take away anyone's APPEND_SLASH
setting. For an existing system, I think it's the best to keep the
slashes.
Pleas
t not the one in the end!
So really, we should be happy about any meaningless symbol we can get
rid of!
But I think we all agree on that so far. Let's see what comes out!
Btw, I'm quite new to django, I was a bit surprised to see this
append_slash thing. Otherwise, it looks nice.
donqui
redirect directive has been triggered, the request will be redirected
to the reduced version.
- If the original url was "clean", django can now execute the action
determined by the dispatcher.
I think this will be more useful than the append_slash mechanic.
