Michael Sullivan wrote: > let's just call it a pet peeve of mine. > i'm not going to try and convince anyone to structure their urls in a > specific way, but I have stated my preference which I think offers more > clarity and logic without cryptic format that is more complicated to > decipher (as you cant just look at the link and know the filename).
You can look at the URL, and *think* you know the file type... What's to prevent: http://example.com/?name=foo&type=mov From being something else, like say, an .exe file perhaps? Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... 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/
