- From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 16:42:06 +1200
On May 23, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > ... > Over on WRI-Talk[1] we've got a discussion going about URL design[2]. > The debate is whether <http://domain.example/blah.xyz> or > <http://domain.example/blah> is more appropriate. > > The argument for using file name extensions is that they can provide a > clue as to what sort of file is being pointed to, to help decide if > it's worth the trouble fetching it, or *how* to fetch it. (For > example, when you known in advance that alink points to a PDF, <http://urlx.org/google.com/0a8e8> is a URL without a suffix, which is quite understandable, because the whole point of urlx.org is to make short URLs. It redirects to a Google Cache URL ending in ".pdf", which is quite understandable, because it's a cache of a PDF document. But the cached version itself is HTML. > you might want to override your browser's default behaviour, end > explicitly tell it to open that in a new window/tab, or save it to > disk and/or open it in another application.) > ... Long ago, when Mozilla was told to open a link in a new window, it would fetch the Content-Type to see whether the resource was actually one that should be handled by a helper app instead. Mozilla browsers don't do that any more, and nor does any other browser I know of, because it made for a horrid user experience. Cheers -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2007 21:42:06 UTC