..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>>
>> There would be much more waste if you have to rename a file from .html
>> to .php and redirect all old links to the new one.
>
>Not at all. A redirect is quite fast and efficient.

While parsing all .html for PHP might waste resources on a single
machine, a redirect wastes bandwidth (on a high-traffic site this
counts!) and resources on a thousand machines around the world. Browsers
have to send another request, search engines and proxys have to update
their caches.

Thirteen Simple Rules for Speeding Up Your Web Site:
11: Avoid Redirects
http://developer.yahoo.com/performan...html#redirects

>And the redirect
>doesn't need to be done forever.

At least some months if you don't want to break old links. In theory it
should be kept forvever.

>It wouldn't have been necessary if the files had been named correctly in
>the first place. And the sooner a bad decision like this is corrected,
>the better it will be.

Correct. No .php in URLs.

Micha