3 ms·
This is a supported use of "Accept" headers, but I kind of miss the pre-SEO web where it was okay for URLs to just carry a file extension - having "example.com/
by hcarvalhoalves 4y ago
This is a supported use of "Accept" headers, but I kind of miss the pre-SEO web where it was okay for URLs to just carry a file extension - having "example.com/dataset/foo.html" and "example.com/dataset/foo.csv" is pretty simple and less ambiguous too.
- ncallaway 4y agoThey support extensions also. As in the article https://csvbase.com/meripaterson/stock-exchanges.csv https://csvbase.com/meripaterson/stock-exchanges.csv will always render a CSV (regardless of accept headers), and https://csvbase.com/meripaterson/stock-exchanges.html https://csvbase.com/meripaterson/stock-exchanges.html appears to do the same for HTML
- kzrdude 4y agoI didn't know it wasn't ok now?
- jaywalk 4y agoI don't think it's SEO so much as the evolving complexity of websites. When there's a .html extension, you're usually pointing at an actual static file sitting on the server. On the page where I'm typing this (/reply) there isn't a simple "reply.html" that's just hiding it's file extension, but a completely dynamic page being rendered.
- hnlmorg 4y agoYou can configure web servers to behave like that if you wanted. The only reason we don’t is because file extensions are ugly and noisy for none technical people. It’s more about having “friendly” URLs than it is a limiting of any technology.