idfer - 11:18 pm on Sep 16, 2008 (gmt 0)

What about graphic or video files like .gif, .png, .jpg, .wmv, .rm, .swv and several others. Is it possible to present them with no extension (what about usability/possible confusion)?

It's possible if you put each file type in a different folder and then use your URL rewriting technology to deal with it.

Wouldn't that be the same as using extensions, except that the file type is replaced by the folder name? You don't really gain much except more complexity in URL rewriting.

What if you have two versions of a file, e.g. .doc and .pdf? Intuitively, i'd refer to them as //example.com/files/blah.doc and //example.com/files/blah.pdf. It makes it obvious what kind of file it is, especially when someone sends you a link by email. It might also make it easier for some search engines to figure out that they're different versions of the same content.

The point about replacing extensions like .php, .asp, etc by .html is very valid. In reality, the produced content is not php/asp anyway but html and it should be identified as such.

The other advantages, although possibly minor, are still real: Shorter URLs ... are easier to type in and remember

How often do people type in URLs other than the domain name, possibly followed by one "folder" name? Anything more complicated than that, and i'd guess nobody would bother to remember, or at best they'll try the URL without and with a .htm/.html extension until one works.