> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> I don't really think so. The only difference is that we don't 
> redirect to hybrid url, but stick to the original bookmarkable urls.
> 
> It just doesn't make sense for e.g. google to index hybrid 
> url, if it can index the original (bookmarkable) one. 
> Although if this proves to be a problem it would be very easy 
> to turn this behavior off.
> 
> Anyway, no different content is served. It seem very unlikely 
> that a crawler would ban this.

ok, lets say it wont be treated as cloaking: how would you know that a
spider is here and not a normal visitor ?? i dont know a save way to find
this out... even though you might want to ask google itself if this is ok -
last statement i know is very strict: 
"Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects.
Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially
duplicate content."
( http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769 )
and we would violate both these rules... basically, the key would be to
choose 1 behaviour and use it all the time.



> It really doesn't make difference here whether the parameters 
> are named or indexed. It's a separate strategy which only 
> parses the mounted urls.

ok

Regards

Korbinian


> > 
> > i also dont understand your format ... why do we need these 
> brackets [] ?
> > and why do we need a pagemap behind? cant this just go into 
> the session?
> No, it can't. It's just how wicket urls work. This is 
> bookmarkable url. 
> It contains information on how to create page instance. And 
> also it can
> (optionally) contain information about in which pagemap the 
> created page should be stored.
> 
> -Matej
> > 
> > just my 2 cents,
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Korbinian
> > 
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Matej Knopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 4. November 2006 13:56
> >> An: [email protected]
> >> Betreff: URL scheme for Wicket 2.0
> >>
> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Proposal+of+
> >> URL+scheme+for+Wicket+2
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> -Matej
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Reply via email to