The URLs could be shorter still if they omitted the .asp bit. I've no idea why more developers don't use default documents for pretty much everything, they're almost always the most elegant & technically sound option.

Posted by: Matt Round on June 3, 2002 06:10 AM

 

For directories, yes, Matt, I agree with you. www.example.com/products is much better than www.example.com/products/index.html

But for individual files, you canna do that, unless you're putting each file in its own folder, of course.

Besides, I think MSNBC's pages are dynamically generated based on the URL, so the ASP is probably required.

Posted by: MadMan on June 3, 2002 12:07 PM

 

Either the site is small, and so putting each page in its own folder isn't a problem, or it's large, in which case you don't have to worry about the file structure (your CMS will either be creating files or, ideally, pages won't ever exist as individual files).

Perhaps it's a requirement that all MS sites have to show the extension to help promote ASP, who knows. I just think it's best to avoid showing the technical innards of your site to the user, for a whole host of reasons (tidiness, security, future-proofing, brevity, etc).

Posted by: Matt Round on June 3, 2002 03:56 PM

 

Thats why mod_rewrite is so cool.... (of course its apache not MS)

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/rewriteguide.html

http://webword.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=232

could become

http://webword.com/mt/232 (or shorter)

with 2 lines in the apache config file (or .htaccess)

Posted by: TimW on June 3, 2002 05:09 PM

 

You can also do that in IIS using an ISAPI DLL, such as URL Replace.

As for Matt's question about why the ASP extension is needed, what's wrong with it? You see .PHP, .pl, .jsp all on the Net, so why not ASP? And it's not exposing anyone to the innards of the site. All it does is tell you that the server is running IIS, which doesn't really interfere in the user's experience. Of course, it's possible to configure IIS so .html files also go through the ASP parser.

Posted by: MadMan on June 4, 2002 01:54 AM

 

Short URL's also occur at Slate. There, there is no asp extention visible. E.G., http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066488 It doesn't seem to be the case at the web site of their parent company...

Posted by: Frank on June 4, 2002 07:06 PM

 

Frank, that's a new feature introduced in IIS 5.0

When you type in http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066488 it's actually getting converted to http://slate.msn.com/default.asp?id=2066488 at the server. Try it out. But yes, it does make for a shorter URL. I used that feature to create a tracking system at CNET India to see which stories from which email newsletters were getting read, and at what time.

Posted by: MadMan on June 5, 2002 12:35 PM

 

"As for Matt's question about why the ASP extension is needed, what's wrong with it? You see .PHP, .pl, .jsp all on the Net, so why not ASP?"
.ASP is no different; they're all best omitted. Users get more usable URLs (easier to type/remember, more obviously related to site structure), site owners get URLs they can promote in other media, developers get consistency and abstraction (especially if building a large CMS-driven site using mod_rewrite/ISAPI).

It's not usually particularly important, but it's a nice touch.

Posted by: Matt Round on June 5, 2002 03:30 PM