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

rudy r937 at interlog.com
Tue Jan 22 10:36:33 CST 2002

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
>-----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
>>>(while the difference here is only one letter, it really adds up when
>>>see a url like:
>>>tID=2291&sessionID=267381522636 ..
>>>instead of
>>>636 ..
>>>(every character does add up.. 'especially if you hate to scroll through
>>>address/url field in your browser looking for a particular variable..)
>>This problem is separate from filename schemes, and I would suggest
>>into server-side rewrite tricks to shorten your urls as much as possible
>>(note that both examples wrapped). It's well covered here:
>>and there is a windows/IIS port of apache's rewrite here:
>>and a different approach with php:
>>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

More information about the thesite mailing list