| Summary: | Don't use document extensions in URLs by default | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Lenya | Reporter: | Rolf Kulemann <mail> |
| Component: | Miscellaneous | Assignee: | Lenya Developers <dev> |
| Status: | NEEDINFO --- | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | dev |
| Priority: | P3 | Keywords: | PatchAvailable |
| Version: | Trunk | ||
| Target Milestone: | 2.0.1 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| URL: | http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cms.lenya.devel/1850 | ||
| Attachments: |
New version of DefaultDocumentBuilder.java
new version of publication-sitemap.xmap |
||
|
Description
Rolf Kulemann
2003-11-26 10:50:55 UTC
Created attachment 9304 [details]
New version of DefaultDocumentBuilder.java
Created attachment 9305 [details]
new version of publication-sitemap.xmap
I think gmane articles do not live forever. So I'm attaching the patches here. do you still believe in this concept? it would, while being very technically clean, break some browers that are too stupid to add the .html on saving (i believe) Do we want/need to support such stupid browsers ? I do not think so. Documenting how to remove/add that feature would be good. (In reply to comment #5) > Do we want/need to support such stupid browsers ? I do not think so. > > Documenting how to remove/add that feature would be good. it is not just stupid browsers. if you do a static export, apache uses the file extension to determine the mime type (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Do we want/need to support such stupid browsers ? I do not think so. > > > > Documenting how to remove/add that feature would be good. > > it is not just stupid browsers. if you do a static export, apache uses the file > extension to determine the mime type same for different language versions. ideally, all of this would be done with content negotiation, but i have rarely seen that implemented in the wild: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/content-negotiation.html is this still relevant, given that the file suffix has been eliminated in the backend code already? (In reply to comment #8) > is this still relevant, given that the file suffix has been eliminated in the > backend code already? IIUC these issues are not related, the bug is about the URL extension. this one looks ancient. and since the attachments are complete files instead of diffs, it's hard to figure out what it's about. can anyone clarify and maybe close this issue? |