page naming conventions OT

[Jeff Thies]

I'm server generating static pages.

I thought I would do this:

Take the section name and append the page title with a dash (underscores to
replace spaces).

The trouble I have is that the sections and page titles are all uppercase,
so I get page name like:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL.htm

subsections would look like:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL-MACHINE_TOOLS.htm

Now, I realize that is perfectly valid, but it just doesn't *look* right to
me. I'm tempted to lowercase it.

Any comments, stylewise or otherwise? Perhaps a better section divider
than a dash? This will be on a case sensitive (linux/apache) server.

Jeff

[Owen Jacobson]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:13:32 +0000, Jeff Thies wrote:

Take the section name and append the page title with a dash (underscores to
replace spaces).

The trouble I have is that the sections and page titles are all uppercase,
so I get page name like:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL.htm

subsections would look like:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL-MACHINE_TOOLS.htm

Any comments, stylewise or otherwise? Perhaps a better section divider
than a dash? This will be on a case sensitive (linux/apache) server.

Have you considered using the heirarchical nature of URLs to your
advantage, rather than reinventing the wheel?

http://site/Services/
http://site/Services/Industrial/
http://site/Services/Industrial/Machine_Tools

might be a workable scheme.

[Jeff Thies]

> > Take the section name and append the page title with a dash (underscores
to

replace spaces).

The trouble I have is that the sections and page titles are all uppercase, so I get page name like:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL.htm

subsections would look like:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL-MACHINE_TOOLS.htm

Any comments, stylewise or otherwise? Perhaps a better section divider
than a dash? This will be on a case sensitive (linux/apache) server.
Have you considered using the heirarchical nature of URLs to your
advantage, rather than reinventing the wheel?

http://site/Services/
http://site/Services/Industrial/
http://site/Services/Industrial/Machine_Tools

It's a thought, and it seems like the right way to go.

Trouble is that there are only 19 html pages which yields a very high
directories to files ratio. It's a lot of trouble tracking all those
directories and making links point the right place.

Cheers,
Jeff
might be a workable scheme.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Owen Jacobson <an******@lionsanctuary.net> wrote:

http://site/Services/Industrial/Machine_Tools

Upper case characters are best avoided in URLs, since they are mainly a
burden - anyone who tries to remember a mnemonic URL will find
difficulties with case distinction.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Owen Jacobson]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:48:37 +0000, Jeff Thies wrote:

It's a thought, and it seems like the right way to go.

Trouble is that there are only 19 html pages which yields a very high
directories to files ratio. It's a lot of trouble tracking all those
directories and making links point the right place.

You're looking at it wrong-way-up. It's only 19 pages now. It's going to
get bigger (axiom: data expands to fill the available storage).
Organizing properly now will save you innumerable headaches in the future.

Jukka's right, by the way. Lowercase is your friend.

[Anne van Kesteren]

Jeff Thies wrote:

It's a thought, and it seems like the right way to go.

Trouble is that there are only 19 html pages which yields a very high
directories to files ratio. It's a lot of trouble tracking all those
directories and making links point the right place.

Linking is not that difficult:

/dir/sub-dir/page.htm

If you are going to make relative links:

.../page.htm

It will be very hard to maintain indeed.

--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

[Jon Bell]

In article <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>,
Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

Owen Jacobson <an******@lionsanctuary.net> wrote:

http://site/Services/Industrial/Machine_Tools

Upper case characters are best avoided in URLs, since they are mainly a
burden - anyone who tries to remember a mnemonic URL will find
difficulties with case distinction.

Except perhaps for names that are normally capitalized, e.g. cities or
countries.

--
Jon Bell <jt*******@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

[Vigil]

I prefer .html myself, doesn't make me look like a MSWin n00b O:-)

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:13:32 +0000, Jeff Thies wrote:

SERVICES-INDUSTRIAL.htm

--

..

[Anne van Kesteren]

Vigil wrote:

I prefer .html myself, doesn't make me look like a MSWin n00b O:-)

What is wrong with '.htm'. I always chose '.htm' since it is shorter,
and almost every filename has that extension.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

Vigil wrote:

I prefer .html myself, doesn't make me look like a MSWin n00b O:-)
What is wrong with '.htm'.

I think you just quoted one important reason!
I always chose '.htm' since it is shorter,
It's a point of view...
and almost every filename has that extension.

Not from where I'm sitting, they don't.

Anyway, when I was using a web server on Windows 3.1 in 1994 or so, I
still wrote my URLs as .html - the server didn't mind (it calmly
chopped off the last letter and ignored the case), and the files were
ultimately destined for a real server (that would have been NCSA HTTPD
on Ultrix, at that time) instead of the toy one that I was using on
Windows for developing the pages.

[Vigil]

That was slightly tongue in cheek. I just automatically think that a page
was created in some MSWin GUI because the author doesn't know HTML
whenever I see something .htm. *shrug*

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:14:06 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

What is wrong with '.htm'. I always chose '.htm' since it is shorter,
and almost every filename has that extension.

--

..

[Geoff Muldoon]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:14:06 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

What is wrong with '.htm'. I always chose '.htm' since it is shorter,
and almost every filename has that extension.

Windozer!

..html .gz .so .c .java .class

GM

[Owen Jacobson]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:32:48 +1100, Geoff Muldoon wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:14:06 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

What is wrong with '.htm'. I always chose '.htm' since it is shorter,
and almost every filename has that extension.

.html .gz .so .c .java .class

And the classic
..htaccess
Eight letter extension, no proper name at all. If you're using a
brane-dead filesystem, anyways.

[MH]

>.... If you're using a

brane-dead filesystem, anyways.

brane-dead ?

-------
MH

[Edward Alfert]

"MH" <no****@nowhere.no> wrote in news:brufiv$j7o$1
@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl:

.... If you're using a
brane-dead filesystem, anyways.

brane-dead ?

drain-bamaged ?

--
Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
Discount Code (Recurring 25% Off): newsgroup
Multiple Domain Hosting * Reseller Hosting
Free IP Addresses * Private Label Nameservers

[Tim]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:18:07 GMT,
Owen Jacobson <an******@lionsanctuary.net> wrote:

And the classic
.htaccess
Eight letter extension, no proper name at all. If you're using a
brane-dead filesystem, anyways.

'tis a "filename" not a file description. In various sensible systems,
the filename is a purely arbitrary thing, and only a brain-dead OS (such
as various Microsoft ones) use the filename to work out what the file
is.

On Unix-like systems, a leading dot means a hidden file, it's not a
filename suffix. For .htaccess the file is called htaccess, and has no
suffix, at all.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.