is using a file extension bad?

just for discussion

[AjiNIMC]

I got an email which says,

First, if you're considering adding .html extensions to your urls, we recommend that you not do it. Even the W3C recommends against it".

The reason for that is

File name extension. This is a very common one. "cgi", even ".html" is something which will change. You may not be using HTML for that page in 20 years time, but you might want today's links to it to still be valid. The canonical way of making links to the W3C site doesn't use the extension."

They are referring to [w3.org...] . What is your opinion about it, I think adding / (slash) at the end gives a feel of a directory (category) with index.html (or some other extension as configured in Webserver) as the file. I think there is no harm in using html as extension, but thought of just putting this for discussion.

[jtara]

I think there is a slow move toward removing .html.

Ruby on Rails by default does not use any extension for HTML content. Since ROR is such a new platform, it gives some clue about the trend.

There's certainly no logical reason to retain it. It was originally a way of telling the SERVER what to do with the file. Servers have long since gained the flexibility making file extensions unnecessary.

It does nothing for users.

It's still useful to include an extension for non-HTML content. For example, Acrobat files should retain their .pdf extension, since this is a clue to the user that a plugin is required to view it. It also tells them to expect a possibly-lengthy download.

[pageoneresults]

What you are referring to is officially called...

12 Content Negotiation
[w3.org...]

This is on my list of things to do for the 2007 year. There are quite a few top 100 Internet properties who deploy this method. The W3C, Google and others have been using it for years.

One of the problems I've seen is how search engines handle Content Negotiation, particularly Yahoo! They list all URIs in the SERPs without a trailing forward slash. That concerns me. I may have content at /file and also at /file/.

Keep in mind that /file and /file/ are two distinctly different addresses. Try adding a trailing forward slash to Google's extensionless URIs. You'll get a 404.

On a side note, don't jump to the conclusion that your files won't be named file.htm anymore. Remember that, on your server, the file extensions are safe. Content negotiation only means that the extensions disappear from source code, markup, and typed URIs.

Another issue I see of concern is how WYSIWYG programs handle files without extension. I know FrontPage/EWD would throw up errors. I would assume your editing environment needs to mimic a server?

P.S. Content Negotiation also addresses a few security concerns too. If your files have extensions, the underlying technology of the site can be determined quickly. Without the extensions, it would take a few extra steps to determine what the heck was going on. ;)

[Durham_e]

Thanks for this thread and the responses.

This seems hugely significant when planning sites.
Really basic, before you make another move stuff.