Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2011


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106573
interpreted = N
texte = On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >> I'm not sure why you'd leave the humans ugly URLs. > > Because those URLs are the default URLs for WebDNA. I thought the parameterized URLs were a convention that came about in the early days of the Internet. Seems the convention is ripe for change. In general, I'm for programmer convenience versus optimization for the computer. But I'd put user convenience above the programmer's. In some frameworks the default is "prettier" to the benefit of users and programmers. >> The search engines like keywords. > > They get plenty of keywords in the static pages. I think it is about quality of the keyword placement (in incoming links, in the domain, in the URLs, in "important" tags e.g.

). Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (William DeVaul 2011)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (sgbc cebu 2011)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Tom Duke 2011)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (William DeVaul 2011)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Stuart Tremain 2011)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Kenneth Grome 2011)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Brian Fries 2011)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Kenneth Grome 2011)
  9. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Govinda 2011)
  10. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Daniel Meola 2011)
  11. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS ("Brian B. Burton" 2011)
  12. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Kenneth Grome 2011)
  13. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS ("Brian B. Burton" 2011)
  14. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (William DeVaul 2011)
  15. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Kenneth Grome 2011)
  16. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (William DeVaul 2011)
  17. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Govinda 2011)
  18. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Kenneth Grome 2011)
  19. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (William DeVaul 2011)
  20. Re: [WebDNA] Pretty URLS (Stuart Tremain 2011)
  21. [WebDNA] Pretty URLS ("Brian B. Burton" 2011)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >> I'm not sure why you'd leave the humans ugly URLs. > > Because those URLs are the default URLs for WebDNA. I thought the parameterized URLs were a convention that came about in the early days of the Internet. Seems the convention is ripe for change. In general, I'm for programmer convenience versus optimization for the computer. But I'd put user convenience above the programmer's. In some frameworks the default is "prettier" to the benefit of users and programmers. >> The search engines like keywords. > > They get plenty of keywords in the static pages. I think it is about quality of the keyword placement (in incoming links, in the domain, in the URLs, in "important" tags e.g.

). William DeVaul

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Web Developer Product Awards (1997) Card clearance, problems - solutions? (1997) math on date? (1997) (1997) problems with WebCat-Plugin (1997) WebCatalog for guestbook ? (1997) Showif Context combined with Search (1997) Multiple security dbs (1997) How do you TEAM Code? (2004) encrypting without "ugly" URLs (2005) Emailer setup (1997) Bug? (1997) WebCat2b14MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't hide the search string (1997) Not really WebCat (1997) dbQuickView 2.0 (2005) users change an email address (2002) Bug or syntax error on my part? (1997) Separate SSL Server (1997) Never mind ...How would you sort this? (2000) variable value locked when passed to include (2001)