[thesite] Fw: [XX]: .html, or .htm? - or - .shtml vs .sht?

[rudy]

you know how they say when your site is down it costs you money?

well, when our site is down, it costs us new members

see attached post from, ahem, another list, by staunch evolt advocate
matthowie




-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Haughey <matt at haughey.com>
Date: January 21, 2002 15:28
Subject: RE: [WD]: .html, or .htm? - or - .shtml vs .sht?

>>Also, shorter URLs are perhaps easier to remember? (for developers, I
guess)
>>(while the difference here is only one letter, it really adds up when you
>>see a url like:
>>http://www.domain.com/index.asp?searchString=just%20testing&section=2&pro
duc
>>tID=2291&sessionID=267381522636 ..
>>instead of
>>http://www.domain.com/index.asp?ss=just%20testing&s=2&pID=2291&sID=267381
522
>>636 ..
>>
>>(every character does add up.. 'especially if you hate to scroll through
the
>>address/url field in your browser looking for a particular variable..)
>
>This problem is separate from filename schemes, and I would suggest
looking
>into server-side rewrite tricks to shorten your urls as much as possible
>(note that both examples wrapped). It's well covered here:
>
>http://www.alistapart.com/stories/urls/index.html
>
>and there is a windows/IIS port of apache's rewrite here:
>http://www.pstruh.cz/help/urlrepl/library.htm
>
>and a different approach with php:
>http://www.alistapart.com/stories/succeed/
>
>There are also a bunch of articles at evolt.org (I'd include them but I
>can't seem to reach the site right now), about "search engine friendly
URLs"
>
>Matt