Omitting document extensions seems very odd. Omitting a document extension to me indicates some level of deception, and gives the URI suspicion. On a different note, I joined the list b/c the validator began giving me 403 error feedback saying it didn't have permission to access the document. I found no adequate reference on-line to why this might be. Help? -- Sean N. Henderson, sean@museworksentertainment.com http://www.seannhenderson.net 212-592-3726 voicemail > Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:01:58 +0200 > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> > To: www-validator@w3.org > Subject: Beta: file name extensions > I got a "tip" that points at > http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI > That's a rather surprising tip, since the document tells information > providers to omit file name extentensions from URIs, something the > validator does not do for it's documents :-)Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 12:32:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT