On Friday 03 May 2002 12:44, Diana Shannon wrote:
>. . .
> www.apache.org/cocoon/faqs/02050308
>. . .
I like numbers for FAQ items, or maybe structured numbers like
"faqs/03.0200/faq-03.200.html" meaning section 3 FAQ 200 (see below about the
redundancy in the filename).
But for larger documents I much prefer descriptive names, which must be well
chosen. Worst case, if a name is changed you may leave a document with the
old name pointing to the new one.
Problem with non-descriptive filenames is when someone saves the page
to disk (or prints it to PDF), loses the path and gets a document name like
"20020423.html". In this case "cocoon-rocket-launch-howto.html" is much
better IMHO, even if there is some redundancy between path and filename
(using - or _ as name separator, whatever).
> 2. I assume we need to continue the use of extensions for static site
> versions
>. . .
yes, AND for lame browsers (that I won't name here ;-) that need a file
extension to know that a document is XML or HTML.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
|