Derek,
Before getting into detail, I'd like to say that I do agree in principle with what you said below.
Oh Good! I was worried for a moment when I saw the size of your response ;-)
My real issue probably lies in the fact that I have been around computers too long.
Ah yes... I remember building my own bi-stable flip flop circuits!
PS The answer to your question of Microsoft Word file is - neither! The existing URL (poor though it might be) is still a valid one and should be kept.
Ok. I was thinking off the top of my head. A better example might be publishing a page with a URL of 'today.asp' or 'today.jsp'. The extension here is irrelevant and simply overcomplicates the URL for the poor humans that might have to type it in or remember it. I see URLs in a more semantic way now after following the workings of the semantic web crowd.
Another simple example occurs with images. We don't really need to note the fact that an image is in gif format by stating that in a URL. Times change and it may be that for legal reasons you can no longer use GIF format at all on your site and you have to use PNG instead. So all those URL references to mylogo.gif have now got to change. Whereas if you had supplied a url of /images/mylogo the change would be invisible and the URL could remain unchanged.
I think I'll stop now... I might catch the zealot bug ;-) Regards, David Legg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
