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

[rudy]

dunno why this didn't go through yesterday

resending gives me the opportunity to correct the spelling of "mathowie"


-----Original Message-----
From: rudy <r937 at interlog.com>
To: thesite at lists.evolt.org <thesite at lists.evolt.org>
Date: January 21, 2002 16:01
Subject: Fw: [XX]: .html, or .htm? - or - .shtml vs .sht?


>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&pr
o
>duc
>>>tID=2291&sessionID=267381522636 ..
>>>instead of
>>>http://www.domain.com/index.asp?ss=just%20testing&s=2&pID=2291&sID=26738
1
>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
>
>