Don't really see any difference to using htm to html myself, I rarely look at the address bar once is typed in or clicked on. Although I would probably write .html if I was typing out an address without checking it first
Well if you use PHP you can use includes (which you should be doing anyway). If not PHP then any other server side language really.
Calling them index.php and linking to site.com/about/ rather than site.com/about.php means that a) users don't have to know/understand any of your extensions and b) if site.com/about/index.php becomes site/about/index.html for whatever reason the link to site.com/about/ will still always work.
I haven't built a site that's just HTML for a long time, so I have no strong feelings on the matter. It's really nothing more than personal preference at the end of the day.
I agree with Harry that if you're doing a site that has repeated elements on every page, then it makes sense to break them apart and use includes for the common elements, using a server side language such as PHP. The folder setup for URLs (http://www.site.com/about/) is also a great solution since it's prettier and easier to remember (and can possibleyhelp with SEO too.)
I think it's OK if you only have a few pages/sub pages, but more than about ten and I agree this would probably become unmanageable. At that point you should probably switch to a CMS driven site anyway.
yep with mod rewrite you could have boobies.php and rewrite it so it appears as a directory in the browser ie www.ilove.com/boobies/ this is called a friendly url. This way you dont have to have millions of directories and index.php pages.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.