By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,225 Members | 1,461 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,225 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

page naming conventions OT

P: n/a
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


Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
15 Replies


P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
> > 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.

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
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

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
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/>
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
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


--

..

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
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/>
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
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.


--

..

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
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

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
MH
>.... If you're using a
brane-dead filesystem, anyways.


brane-dead ?

-------
MH
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
"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
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #16

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.