On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:35:14 +0100, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i cant argue against that. which is why i have'nt ;-) > my focus is on if/how a masked url redirect should be laid out. > if the url is a direct media location, i dont think its ludicrous to > suggest > that the filename reside in the url instead of replacing it with a fake > filename format etc. But that's so contrary to the web. Why should you, I and everyone else spend time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesn't exists? I don't hear any complaints that the URL http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20060310-1630/ doesn't contain a filename. Should I be using http://www.solitude.dk/showentry.php?id=20060310-1630 instead so you can see the filename of the script? I don't get why you want to disallow clean URLs for media files. URLs are arbitrary, that's fundemental to the web. If you want to change that you better have a damn good reason. I haven't heard that reason yet, since you're trying to solve a problem that don't exist. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
