17488 Posts in 4473 Topics by 1978 members
| Go to End | Next > | |
| Author | Topic: | 30767 Views |
-
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
4 August 2008 at 11:14am
And the changes that have been done to the 2.2.2ROA branch - which will be merged back into the standard release for 2.3 has a few changes to Director and how it handles URLs which will make sublevel urls much easier to implement
-
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
4 August 2008 at 7:06pm Last edited: 4 August 2008 7:07pm
ModX references everything by its ID number e.g., index.php?id=50. Even when using aliases it seems to be restricted to 1 layer. See their documentation section. I just had a play on the demo and I couldn't even get to my test page because it didn't show up in the menus.
Drupal appears to use the same /module/function/parameter/ format as other CMSs e.g., /node/20/. Looks quite powerful/customisable/complication.
-
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
4 August 2008 at 9:44pm Last edited: 4 August 2008 9:44pm
I'm really happy this change is making its way through the system. At first I questioned the validity of multilevel URLs; do we just want them because we've always had them? But after thinking about it for a while I can say that yes, they are valid and help make a web site semantic (and help with SEO). With sublevel URLs you can easily tell that .../auto/beetle and .../auto/porsche are related but .../insect/beetle is not.
Anyway, this makes me happy and I look forward to my URLs being laid out according to my folder / sub-folder hierarchy.
Man, I feel like a geek for saying that out loud.
Later...
Richard -
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
18 August 2008 at 2:56am
RNHurt:
I totally agree with what you are saying.
Running a large site with 100s of pages, I really don't like the idea of not having sub-levels.
I run the website for a radio station,and instead of having /show1 /show2 etc. which could easily get confusing, I want to be able to have /shows/1 /shows/2. This also means that if someone just wants shows, they can go to shows and get a list 1,2 etc.
Or /programming/music would make more sense than just /music because /music makes it seem like it's OUR music, not music we play as part of our programming.
I will be glad when this is merged in to the core - it's the biggest thing that SilverStripe is missing... I would say it's what has stopped me from moving all my sites to it, and I don't think I will have been the only person that has been put off the system because of it.
-
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
18 August 2008 at 9:56am
Have to agree.
Although I don't necessarily want it myself, we haven't been able to convert some sites because of a specialized SEO company involved which demanded nested URL's ......
This will be a great feature!
-
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
18 August 2008 at 10:11am
Bit late in the game, but is there any reason multi-level urls have to be in the format:
mysite.com/major-level/minor-level/page
Specifically - I'm not aware of any particular reason that slashes have to be used as delimiters - I'm not sure that google makes a distinction between that and (for example):
mysite.com/major-level,minor-level,page
This avoids the conflict issue, and would also allow the director a bit more flexibility.
Semantically, the slashes might be more common, but then having method calls at the end isn't particularly semantic so it shouldn't really be a concern.
-
Re: Urls, why no 'sublevel' urls?
18 August 2008 at 7:52pm Last edited: 18 August 2008 8:06pm
Hamish,
Although Rails has been leaning towards using the colon character to denote parameters, the official w3c specification for URLs is to use the / character to separate URL segments, and then use GET variables to denote page view options.
Also, using that approach would be confusing, as it departs from traditional file system approaches (the / and \ characters).
All other characters can be used in file names, and there comes the issue of distinguishing files from URLs. Also, I think google is actually based on the / character.
Adding extra characters to denote hierachy (e.g. page-sub-page) is a good temporary fix suggested by Sam, but its not appropriate IMO for a complete solution.
edit: subscribe
| 30767 Views | ||
| Go to Top | Next > |
