- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:10:31 +0200
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >* Terje Bless wrote: >>BTW, this also goes to adress your earlier comments on filename >>extensions. At some point in the future, I'll make XHTML 1.1 versions >>of all the pages on v.w3.org. These will be named .xhtml and all links >>will be changed ^^^^^^^^^ >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Now you see why file name extensions are bad, don't you? No. Why would you say that? All existing links will still work; nobody will get 404 responses. It's just that all pages internally will take advantage of Content Negotiation after there is something to actually conneg _with_. Actually, I'm seriously tempted to name the files index.html.html and index.html.xhtml just to tweak a certain Dict^H^Hrector's beard! :-) I've read, and heard, the argument more times then I can count -- hence my suspicion that you'd been talking to AaronSw and sbp :-) -- and I don't accept it as canon. It's a usefull guideline along with "Cool URIs Don't Change", but it's not the gospel or the One And Only Truth[tm]. I'm allowed to use my noggin for more then hanging a hat on I'm pretty sure... :-) ( And, BTW, those filename extensions were there when I got there so don't go blaming me for them! :-) ) -- "Temper Temper! Mr. Dre? Mr. NWA? Mr. AK, comin´ straight outta Compton and y'all better make way?" -- eminem
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 16:10:34 UTC