In article <8Z-dnWOEX6cql37bnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> It wouldn't have been necessary if the files had been named correctly in
> the first place.

You mean years back I got the names wrong? Guess my crystal ball
was not working right. <g>

> And the sooner a bad decision like this is corrected,
> the better it will be.

--
dorayme

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>>
>> At least some months if you don't want to break old links. In theory it
>> should be kept forvever.
>
>Some redirects are unavoidable. And redirecting some pages for a few
>months is much better than wasting CPU cycles forever.
>
>Oh, and yes. Yahoo is SUCH an expert on these things. ROFLMAO!

I guess you didn't even read it. There are other reports on the net
available about the traffic caused by unnecessary redirects.

>>> 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.
>
>No one else shares your views.

Wrong.

Micha

..oO(J.O. Aho)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>If you use a proper web server daemon, then you have other options than
>force the browser to make a new request.

If you change a URL, you have two choices:

1) Serve the same content with the old _and_ the new URL.
2) Redirect the old to the new URL with 301 status.

Anything else?

Micha

dorayme wrote:
> In article <8Z-dnWOEX6cql37bnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> It wouldn't have been necessary if the files had been named correctly in
>> the first place.
>
> You mean years back I got the names wrong? Guess my crystal ball
> was not working right. <g>
>
>> And the sooner a bad decision like this is corrected,
>> the better it will be.
>

I do this:

..php for pages (or other output) generated entirely by PHP.
..htm for pages that may be a mix (possibly templates) of the two.
..html or .shtml for static pages.

....of course you can use whatever extensions you want for whatever you
want as long as you configure (apache for me) them properly.

Norm

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> At least some months if you don't want to break old links. In theory it
>>> should be kept forvever.
>> Some redirects are unavoidable. And redirecting some pages for a few
>> months is much better than wasting CPU cycles forever.
>>
>> Oh, and yes. Yahoo is SUCH an expert on these things. ROFLMAO!
>
> I guess you didn't even read it. There are other reports on the net
> available about the traffic caused by unnecessary redirects.
>

Yes, I read it. A bunch of tripe.

Yea, more of your "experts"? It's someone's opinion. That's it. They
are not recognized by W3C, ICANN or even any major college or
university. IOW - they're completely without credibility.

>>>> 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.
>> No one else shares your views.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Micha

OK, let me rephrase that. No one with any sense agrees with you.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================