URLing schemes and elegance

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...

Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like

http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services

And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[Justin Koivisto]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
[color=blue]
> Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...
>
> Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like
> http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services
> And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA[/color]

Not I. I have been sticking with mod_rewrite for all my "se friendly"
URIs. The best part about it is the hiding of technology. Afterall, if I
have to switch a site over to jsp, asp or coldfusion, I can still keep
the URIs without anyone (including the SEs) knowing that I am using a
different tech.

Even if I am doing static HTML pages, I still like to use mod_rewrite
for the fact that If I change, it will be transparent to any visitors or
search engines.

--
Justin Koivisto - spam@koivi.com
PHP POSTERS: Please use comp.lang.php for PHP related questions,
alt.php* groups are not recommended.

[Brad Kent]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

anytime I see "index.php" or "index.html " in a URL I think their web
guy must be a doofus.
But specific to your question.. I'm using something like:

http://talks.php.net/?page=Web+Services

and back to my peeve.. what's with urls like
/information/information.htm l
/calendar/calendar.html
/contact-us/contact-us.html
etc..
morons!

ng4rrjanbiah@re diffmail.com (R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah) wrote in message news:<abc4d8b8. 0406220312.3850 15b5@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...
>
> Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like
> http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services
> And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA[/color]

[Chung Leong]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

"Brad Kent" <bkfake-google@yahoo.co m> wrote in message
news:7ad3d45b.0 406221221.20d5d 0c6@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> anytime I see "index.php" or "index.html " in a URL I think their web
> guy must be a doofus.
> But specific to your question.. I'm using something like:
> http://talks.php.net/?page=Web+Services
>
> and back to my peeve.. what's with urls like
> /information/information.htm l
> /calendar/calendar.html
> /contact-us/contact-us.html
> etc..
> morons![/color]

Err, have you developed in a team before? Keeping the filename in the URL,
as well as using unique names for files, make it easier for others to
understand your code. If there's a problem in a page, all they have to do is
take quick glance at the URL to find the right file to examine.

Filtering all page requests through a single script is stupid. You are
basically just replicating what the web server does, which is resolving a
URL to the correct page. At the same time you create a single point of
failure.

[Chung Leong]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng4rrjanbiah@r ediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:abc4d8b8.0 406220312.38501 5b5@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...
>
> Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like
> http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services
> And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA[/color]

I found it utterly stupid. This kind architecture usually requires passing a
user-supplied variable to include()--one of the leading causes of server
compromise in PHP sites.

When I look at my server log, I see requests for URLs like
'/?page=http://www.blog.ru/~vlds83/blob.txt' all the time. These are
automated attacks against scripts coded by folks who reinvent the wheel for
no good reason.

Take a look at www.php.net. Simple, straight forward schemes are elegant
imho.

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

Justin Koivisto <spam@koivi.com > wrote in message news:<xXWBc.194 5$m3.102320@new s7.onvoy.net>.. .[color=blue]
> R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...
> >
> > Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like
> > http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services
> > And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA[/color]
>
> Not I. I have been sticking with mod_rewrite for all my "se friendly"
> URIs. The best part about it is the hiding of technology. Afterall, if I
> have to switch a site over to jsp, asp or coldfusion, I can still keep
> the URIs without anyone (including the SEs) knowing that I am using a
> different tech.[/color]

Thanks for your comments. You seem to suggest mod_rewrite instead of
that scheme? But, if I'm right, they also seem to use mod_rewrite as
in the case:

http:talks.php. net/index.php/Web+Services
to
http:talks.php. net/index.php?page= Web+Services

Am I wrong?

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

bkfake-google@yahoo.co m (Brad Kent) wrote in message news:<7ad3d45b. 0406221221.20d5 d0c6@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> anytime I see "index.php" or "index.html " in a URL I think their web
> guy must be a doofus.
> But specific to your question.. I'm using something like:
> http://talks.php.net/?page=Web+Services
>
> and back to my peeve.. what's with urls like
> /information/information.htm l
> /calendar/calendar.html
> /contact-us/contact-us.html
> etc..
> morons![/color]

Thanks for your comments. I see your points. URLs like
/information/information.htm l are becoming popular because of some SEO
papers.

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

"Chung Leong" <chernyshevsky@ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Wu-dnRTNjv9-IEXdRVn-vA@comcast.com> ...[color=blue]
> "R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng4rrjanbiah@r ediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:abc4d8b8.0 406220312.38501 5b5@posting.goo gle.com...[color=green]
> > Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...
> >
> > Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like
> > http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services
> > And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA[/color]
>
> I found it utterly stupid. This kind architecture usually requires passing a
> user-supplied variable to include()--one of the leading causes of server
> compromise in PHP sites.
>
> When I look at my server log, I see requests for URLs like
> '/?page=http://www.blog.ru/~vlds83/blob.txt' all the time. These are
> automated attacks against scripts coded by folks who reinvent the wheel for
> no good reason.
>
> Take a look at www.php.net. Simple, straight forward schemes are elegant
> imho.[/color]

Thanks for your comments. I could see, you're against to
"centralize d" (ie, single index.php style as of phpNuke) architecture.
I could see the URLing style like index.php/foo as in
http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services becoming popular in php
websites. I first saw such style in phpPatterns of Harry Fuecks eg.
<http://www.phppatterns .com/index.php/article/archive/11/>. But
nowadays this style is becoming more popular in PHP.

Personally, I'm not much attracted by this style. But, just liked to
know how many liked that style.

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[Chung Leong]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

"R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah" <ng4rrjanbiah@r ediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:abc4d8b8.0 406230204.3278e 016@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Thanks for your comments. I could see, you're against to
> "centralize d" (ie, single index.php style as of phpNuke) architecture.
> I could see the URLing style like index.php/foo as in
> http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services becoming popular in php
> websites. I first saw such style in phpPatterns of Harry Fuecks eg.
> <http://www.phppatterns .com/index.php/article/archive/11/>. But
> nowadays this style is becoming more popular in PHP.
>
> Personally, I'm not much attracted by this style. But, just liked to
> know how many liked that style.[/color]

Because there are more and more page-designers (as opposed to programmers)
using PHP, bringing with them their graphics oriented mindset. What they're
trying to accomplish is put a frame (top nav, side nav, tool bar, etc)
around some content in the middle of the page. Visually, it seems to make
sense to have this arrangement:

index.php:

[top nav HTML]
[side nav HTML]
<? include($conten t_path); ?>
[footer HTML]

From a functional point of view though, it really doesn't, since the main
functionality of that page is the stuff in the middle, while the frame
itself is of secondary importance. This is a better design:

article.php:

<?

include("header .php");
[ code that pull up the content ]
include("footer .php");

?>

because more control is given to the script that actually produces the
useful stuff. It could, for example, decide to use a slightly different
header because the content is wide and the page would look better with a
slimmer left nav, or it could forgo including the header altogether because
it's going to do a redirect. In a single entry point it wouldn't be able to
do the same as it has no control over the file that includes it.

[Brad Kent]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

"Chung Leong" <chernyshevsky@ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2--dnRQp_OboLEXdRV n-gg@comcast.com> ...[color=blue]
> "Brad Kent" <bkfake-google@yahoo.co m> wrote in message
> news:7ad3d45b.0 406221221.20d5d 0c6@posting.goo gle.com...[color=green]
> > anytime I see "index.php" or "index.html " in a URL I think their web
> > guy must be a doofus.
> > But specific to your question.. I'm using something like:
> > http://talks.php.net/?page=Web+Services
> >
> > and back to my peeve.. what's with urls like
> > /information/information.htm l
> > /calendar/calendar.html
> > /contact-us/contact-us.html
> > etc..
> > morons![/color]
>
> Err, have you developed in a team before? Keeping the filename in the URL,
> as well as using unique names for files, make it easier for others to
> understand your code. If there's a problem in a page, all they have to do is
> take quick glance at the URL to find the right file to examine.
>
> Filtering all page requests through a single script is stupid. You are
> basically just replicating what the web server does, which is resolving a
> URL to the correct page. At the same time you create a single point of
> failure.[/color]


having unique filenames makes perfect sense.. but since they're
unique what's with all the separate dir names of the same name holding
a single html file?
/path/information.htm l
/path/calendar.html
/path/contact-us.html
works just as well.
part of the problem I see with sites using my peeve is that they tend
to bork up on their navigation as well.. forgetting to use a
relative or absolute path to get to the other pages.
here's a site I just visited this morning that illustrates many of
these peeves/issues... http://www.fullmoonrun.com/
* a directory for each page..
* including "index.php" in their urls.
* not knowing how to link to the other pages once they're in their
directory mess

[Lāʻie Techie]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:21:28 -0700, Brad Kent wrote:
[color=blue]
> and back to my peeve.. what's with urls like /information/information.htm l
> /calendar/calendar.html
> /contact-us/contact-us.html
> etc..
> morons![/color]

Having worked for an online mall, we were told that such repetition is one
way to force a higher ranking in some search engines. Some designers at
that mall likewise have paragraphs full of key words, using CSS to hide
this nonsense from the end user.

La'ie Techie

[lurker]

Re: URLing schemes and elegance

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
[color=blue]
> Justin Koivisto <spam@koivi.com > wrote in message
> news:<xXWBc.194 5$m3.102320@new s7.onvoy.net>.. .[color=green]
>> R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Bit OT, but PHP oriented style issue...
>> >
>> > Just curious to know how many of you really use the URLs like
>> > http://talks.php.net/index.php/Web+Services
>> > And how many of you really liked or found it elegant? TIA[/color]
>>
>> Not I. I have been sticking with mod_rewrite for all my "se friendly"
>> URIs. The best part about it is the hiding of technology. Afterall, if I
>> have to switch a site over to jsp, asp or coldfusion, I can still keep
>> the URIs without anyone (including the SEs) knowing that I am using a
>> different tech.[/color]
>
> Thanks for your comments. You seem to suggest mod_rewrite instead of
> that scheme? But, if I'm right, they also seem to use mod_rewrite as
> in the case:
>
> http:talks.php. net/index.php/Web+Services
> to
> http:talks.php. net/index.php?page= Web+Services
>
> Am I wrong?[/color]

Mod_rewrite usage doesn't even require the ".php" extension. All someone
browsing a site using mod_rewrite to rewrite the URLs would see is

https://www.site.com/content/whatever

The backend of the site could be php, perl, python, a CGI app, whatever, and the
URI's would stay the same even if someone switches the backend to an entirely
different programming language.