Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-05 Thread Joe Ortenzi
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

RE: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Chris Vickery
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 the hyperlink 3. Makes layout difficult for desktop publishers and marketing ie.

RE: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Bucci, Justin
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

Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Todd Budnikas
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

Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Bruce
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

Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Joe Ortenzi
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:

RE: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Ashley Butler
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

Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Brett Patterson
: [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

RE: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Chris Vickery
: [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

Re: [WSG] URL length best practices [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-04 Thread Hassan Schroeder
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