32 ms·
I wouldn't mind this if it had breadcrumbs. For example, http://example.com/path/to/file.html http://example.com/path/to/file.html would be four buttons (chips?
by pixelcort 12y ago
I wouldn't mind this if it had breadcrumbs. For example, http://example.com/path/to/file.html http://example.com/path/to/file.html would be four buttons (chips?) [example.com][path][to][file.html]
- tempestn 12y agoThe problem with that is that most of the buttons would take you to pages that don't exist. I guess the browser could crawl them first, but what would really be the point?
- DougWebb 12y agoURLs are supposed to be atomic; there's no guarantee that truncating a url is going to lead you anyplace useful. The fact that it often does started as an accident of early implementations (hey, show a directory listing by default) followed by a security backfill (damn, directory is showing; better drop an index.html in there) which lead to a convention (better put something meaningful at each level of the url, because people will try them and we don't want 404 errors.) I don't think the convention can be assumed to be true for any website to the degree needed to implement a feature like you suggest. There would be too many errors when people click on those buttons, and people would blame the browser, not the website.