5 ms·

Some famous programmer once wrote about how links should last forever. He advocated for /foo/bar with no extension. He was right about not using /foo/bar.php b

Some famous programmer once wrote about how links should last forever. He advocated for /foo/bar with no extension. He was right about not using /foo/bar.php because the implementation might change. But he was wrong, it should be /foo/bar.html because the end-result will always be HTML when it's served by a browser, whether it's generated by PHP, Node.js or by hand. It's pointless to prepare for some hypothetical new browser that uses an alternate language other than HTML and that doesn't use HTML. Just use .html for your pages and stop worrying about how to correctly convert foo.md to foo/index.html and configure nginx accordingly.

Dwedit 1y ago
mod_rewrite means you can redirect the .php page to something else if you stop using php.
- shakna 1y ago
  Unless mod_rewrite is disabled, because it has had a few security bugs over the years. Like last year. [0] [0] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38475 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38475
- account42 1y ago
  It also means you can internally redirect the extension-less version to .php in the first place so you never have to change your public URL in the future.
90s_dev 1y ago
Found it: https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI Why did I think Joel Spolsky or Jeff Atwood wrote it?
Sesse__ 1y ago
> Some famous programmer once wrote about how links should last forever. You're probably thinking of W3C's guidance: https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI > But he was wrong, it should be /foo/bar.html because the end-result will always be HTML 20 years ago, it wasn't obvious at all that the end-result would always be HTML (in particular, various styled forms of XML was thought to eventually take over). And in any case, there's no reason to have the content-type in the URL; why would the user care about that?
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  There's strong precedence for associating file extensions with content types. And it allows static files to map 1:1 to URLs. I agree though that I was too harsh, I didn't realize it was written in 1998 when HTML was still new. I probably first read it around 2010. But now that we have hindsight, I think it's safe to say .html files will continue to be supported for the next 50 years.
crackalamoo 1y ago
I use /foo/bar/ with the trailing slash because it works better with relative URLs for resources like images. I could also use /foo/bar/index.html but I find the former to be cleaner
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  It's always bothered me in a small way that github doesn't honor this: https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles/ https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles/ No redirect, just two renders! It bothers me first because it's semantically different. Second and more importnatly, because it's always such a pain to configure that redirect in nginx or whatever. I eventually figure it out each time, after many hours wasted looking it up all over again and trial/error.
esafak 1y ago
If it's always .html, it's cruft; get rid of it. And what if it's not HTML but JSON? Besides, does the user care? Berners-Lee was right. https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  If it's JSON then name it /foo/bar.json, and as a bonus you can also have /foo/bar.html! You say the extension is cruft. That's your opinion. I don't share it.
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    The alternative is to declare what you want on the Accept header, what is way less transparent but is more flexible. I never saw any site where the extra flexibility added any value. So, right now I do favor the extension.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    At the risk of committing the appeal-to-authority fallacy, it's also the opinion of Tim Berners-Lee, which I would hope carries at least some weight. The way I look at it is that yes, the extension can be useful for requesting a particular file format (IMO the Accept header is not particularly accessible, especially if you are just a regular web browser user). But if you have a default/canonical representation, then you should give that representation in response to a URL that has no extension. And when you link to that document in a representation-neutral way, you should link without the extension. That doesn't stop you from also serving that same content from a URL that includes the extension that describes the default/canonical representation. And people who want to link to you and ensure they get a particular representation can use the extension in their links. But someone who doesn't care, and just wants the document in whatever format the website owner recommends, should be able to get it without needing to know the extension. For those situations, the extension is an implementation detail that is irrelevant to most visitors.
    - 90s_dev 1y ago

Dwedit 1y ago

mod_rewrite means you can redirect the .php page to something else if you stop using php.

shakna 1y ago
Unless mod_rewrite is disabled, because it has had a few security bugs over the years. Like last year. [0] [0] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38475 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38475
account42 1y ago
It also means you can internally redirect the extension-less version to .php in the first place so you never have to change your public URL in the future.

90s_dev 1y ago

Found it: https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI Why did I think Joel Spolsky or Jeff Atwood wrote it?

Sesse__ 1y ago

> Some famous programmer once wrote about how links should last forever. You're probably thinking of W3C's guidance: https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI > But he was wrong, it should be /foo/bar.html because the end-result will always be HTML 20 years ago, it wasn't obvious at all that the end-result would always be HTML (in particular, various styled forms of XML was thought to eventually take over). And in any case, there's no reason to have the content-type in the URL; why would the user care about that?

90s_dev 1y ago
There's strong precedence for associating file extensions with content types. And it allows static files to map 1:1 to URLs. I agree though that I was too harsh, I didn't realize it was written in 1998 when HTML was still new. I probably first read it around 2010. But now that we have hindsight, I think it's safe to say .html files will continue to be supported for the next 50 years.

crackalamoo 1y ago

I use /foo/bar/ with the trailing slash because it works better with relative URLs for resources like images. I could also use /foo/bar/index.html but I find the former to be cleaner

90s_dev 1y ago
It's always bothered me in a small way that github doesn't honor this: https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles/ https://github.com/sdegutis/bubbles/ No redirect, just two renders! It bothers me first because it's semantically different. Second and more importnatly, because it's always such a pain to configure that redirect in nginx or whatever. I eventually figure it out each time, after many hours wasted looking it up all over again and trial/error.

esafak 1y ago

If it's always .html, it's cruft; get rid of it. And what if it's not HTML but JSON? Besides, does the user care? Berners-Lee was right. https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

90s_dev 1y ago
If it's JSON then name it /foo/bar.json, and as a bonus you can also have /foo/bar.html! You say the extension is cruft. That's your opinion. I don't share it.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  The alternative is to declare what you want on the Accept header, what is way less transparent but is more flexible. I never saw any site where the extra flexibility added any value. So, right now I do favor the extension.
- kelnos 1y ago
  At the risk of committing the appeal-to-authority fallacy, it's also the opinion of Tim Berners-Lee, which I would hope carries at least some weight. The way I look at it is that yes, the extension can be useful for requesting a particular file format (IMO the Accept header is not particularly accessible, especially if you are just a regular web browser user). But if you have a default/canonical representation, then you should give that representation in response to a URL that has no extension. And when you link to that document in a representation-neutral way, you should link without the extension. That doesn't stop you from also serving that same content from a URL that includes the extension that describes the default/canonical representation. And people who want to link to you and ensure they get a particular representation can use the extension in their links. But someone who doesn't care, and just wants the document in whatever format the website owner recommends, should be able to get it without needing to know the extension. For those situations, the extension is an implementation detail that is irrelevant to most visitors.
  - 90s_dev 1y ago