I guess I’m the only one that doesn’t care that my .html is showing. Seems like a lot of work and hassle, and I don’t get why this is desirable or necessary. I get why it’s a good idea to use keywords or the entry title for the file name (rather than MT’s less meaningful 000355.html type file names). But getting rid of the file extension completely? I must be missing something, since folks I respect a lot seem to think this is important. Anyone care to explain? Personally, I like being able to tell if a page is static HTML, or if not, what scripting language is being used.
Related posts:
- del.icio.us new bookmark add-on for Firefox
The good folks at Yahoo have come up with a... - The great debate about open APIs: Perspective from a nonprofit living it
Most mornings, I log into GetActive and run an export... - Repairing a corrupted .PST file
The last few weeks, I’ve been having some trouble with... - Performancing for Firefox bug/issue
I use Performancing for some of my blog entries. It’s... - Live title links
From [ProBlogger](http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/11/08/making-titles-live-links/): >One of the first tips I was given...
