Re: [WSG] file extensions

I agree...definitely not a clean URL and it would be a major headache. Sam, OS X doesn't use file extensions in that manner. They're there for compatibility's sake when in mixed environments. The OS still figures out the type from the metadata in the file, it just requires extensions to ensure p

Re: [WSG] file extensions

On Jun 12, 2004, at 6:27 PM, Christopher Kennon wrote: ... Interestingly, there really is little value to including file extensions such as gif, . jpg , .js, and so on. The browser does not rely on these values to render a page; rather it uses the MIME type header in the response. Knowing this,

RE: [WSG] file extensions

Michael Kear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > But in a shared environment, which is where the vast majority of sites > actually are, all the users on a site would have to stop using .CFM > extensions on their coldfusion pages if you were sending .cfm pages to PHP. This can be done on a site by site ba

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Marc Greenstock wrote: that means the server has to scan the specified directory for all those files rather than retrieving the specific files. The server has to scan the directory anyway in order to find the file matching the requested name. Server software isn't omniscient, scanning the direct

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote: Not even a good idea for Amazon. If you stop putting "extensions" on file names, There's an in between ground: the files have the extensions, but the URL's don't. As long as you don't have multiple images with the same name (which you wouldn't be able to do while s

Re: [WSG] file extensions

The voices are telling me that Peter Firminger said on 6/12/2004 7:48 PM: Not a good idea for the average website. If you're running amazon.com then there would be a reason to do it but for most of us maintenance would be an issue. Not even a good idea for Amazon. If you stop putting "extensions"

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Hi, Thanks for the vigorous and spirited replies. I'll just use the trusted method of file extensions, as this excerpt was keeping me up at night. I was hoping I was not just blindly loyal to convention, unable to accept a needed change. After reading the replies to abandon file extensions is j

RE: [WSG] file extensions

13 June 2004 9:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] file extensions Hi The portability of URI's is an important point here: as discussed, if a web developer wants to move from X to Y server side language yet retain the URL stucture then this is the way to go, in Apache it's j

Re: [WSG] file extensions

James Ellis wrote: Hi The portability of URI's is an important point here: as discussed, if a web developer wants to move from X to Y server side language yet retain the URL stucture then this is the way to go, in Apache it's just a simple matter of telling it how to handle certain extension-le

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Hi The portability of URI's is an important point here: as discussed, if a web developer wants to move from X to Y server side language yet retain the URL stucture then this is the way to go, in Apache it's just a simple matter of telling it how to handle certain extension-less files. That said,

RE: [WSG] file extensions

MAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anders Nawroth Sent: Sunday, 13 June 2004 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] file extensions Michael Kear wrote: > What's the point of doing this? Saving 4 characters per image as a way > of reducing bandwidth? Is there any other purpose? &g

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Michael Kear wrote: What’s the point of doing this? Saving 4 characters per image as a way of reducing bandwidth? Is there any other purpose? */ /* There is another purpose. See this W3C Note: "Serve static content without file extension CM The reason why one sho

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Christopher Kennon wrote: Hi, Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the extension was missing. Thus the question was inspired. Chri

RE: [WSG] file extensions

Of Christopher Kennon Sent: Sunday, 13 June 2004 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] file extensions   Hi, Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it app

RE: [WSG] file extensions

9:28 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] file extensions Hi,Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the ext

Re: [WSG] file extensions

Hi, Below is the url and excerpt from the passage in question. I've tried it and it works. The images are displayed, but someone looking over the code commented that it appeared that an image was used, but the extension was missing. Thus the question was inspired. Chris http://www.sitepoint.com

RE: [WSG] file extensions

> Just finished article from a reputable web site, specializing in best > practices. They suggest omitting the file extensions .gif , .jpg and > .png from image files for bandwidth conservation. Chris, Whats the URL for this article. I'm finding it hard to grasp the reasoning, does it save on

[WSG] file extensions

Hi, Just finished article from a reputable web site, specializing in best practices. They suggest omitting the file extensions .gif , .jpg and .png from image files for bandwidth conservation. I understand the theory, the mime-type is interpreted by the sever and the correct file is served to