yes, good point.
I was making a subtle stab at the .htm versus .html discussion in here
recently.
but given my 'druthers, yes, I'd personally drop all file extensions
in URLs completely if I could.
Joe
On 05/11/2008, at 4:04 PM, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
Joe Ortenzi wrote:
the long and
Wondering if people have insights into the length of a url for an
article, and whether or not it is recommended to complete the name of
an article in the url. For instance:
http://egovau.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-collaborative-online-groups-need-to.html
The name of this article is Do
Todd Budnikas wrote:
Wondering if people have insights into the length of a url for an
article, and whether or not it is recommended to complete the name of an
article in the url. For instance:
http://egovau.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-collaborative-online-groups-need-to.html
The name of this
..and if you are truncating url paths based on a page title at a certain
point, you'll end up with some odd urls sooner or later..
e.g example.com/blog/why-xyz-browser-sucks.html
when your title is:
Why XYZ browser sucks less than ABC browser
RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) doesn't set a maximum length on
other than making sense and having a strong connection with the page
the content is on, there is no direct reason, other than being a bit
sensible about it, I wouldn't advise testing out the 2048 characters.
On 05/11/2008, at 9:32 AM, James Ellis wrote:
RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) doesn't set a
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other than making sense and having a strong connection with the page the
content is on, there is no direct reason, other than being a bit sensible
about it, I wouldn't advise testing out the 2048 characters.
of course there
to get at.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of silky
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:28 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other
2008 12:41
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
More reasons to keep 'em short:
1. Makes it easy to quote URL (maybe over the phone) 2. I've seen a few
email or publication programs break URLs where there's a line return, so
breaks
take you to the same location.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Chris Vickery
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:41
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
More reasons to keep 'em short
From: silky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Todd Budnikas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i completely agree with Justin, and all points from just
length best practices
Wondering if people have insights into the length of a url for an
article, and whether or not it is recommended to complete the name of
an article in the url. For instance:
http://egovau.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-collaborative-online-groups-need-t
o.html
The name
I said no direct reason, but you point is a good reason to consider
short URLs but this is not always possible, but yes, typablity is a
good thing too.
On 05/11/2008, at 11:27 AM, silky wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other than making sense
better
to get at.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of silky
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:28 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED
Wait so would it make more sense to include keywords in your link for
you main navigation?
so instead of about I would make it about-andrew-brown?
On 4-Nov-08, at 11:21 PM, Joe Ortenzi wrote:
I said no direct reason, but you point is a good reason to consider
short URLs but this is not
Please stop emailing me!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Ortenzi
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 3:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sorry for being a bit off topic
: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sorry for being a bit off topic but.
I think you missed a point about friendly URLs
For each of these examples you state, you really don't want to burden
your marketing team with urls like your example:
www.chrisandhispetstore.com
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Ortenzi
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 3:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sorry for being a bit off topic but.
I think you missed a point about friendly URLs
For each
Joe Ortenzi wrote:
the long and friendly URL is really for the final page, which should not
bury a full product list so deeply and should be titled
/product_list.html anyway.
Uh, how about more properly '/product_list' (or '/product-list') --
your customers don't care about the underlying
18 matches
Mail list logo
