Let me try this again.Oleg wrote:Since mod_rewrite or equivalent facilities can be assumed to be always available to anyone who is serious about their website, this point is moot.Pony99CA wrote:My point wasn't whether Web servers support mod_rewrite or not. The Bantu post that I quoted said that there's no going back if you use mod_rewrite, but with my proposal, there is (because it doesn't require mod_rewrite).Oleg wrote:This is not a benefit as to my knowledge every web server currently in existence that is of any significance supports some form of routing arbitrary uri paths to php scripts.Pony99CA wrote: That's another benefit of my proposal -- it doesn't require mod_rewrite.
Is Bantu correct or not? Can you "go back"?My point wasn't whether Web servers support mod_rewrite or not. The Bantu post that I quoted said that there's no going back if you use mod_rewrite, but with my proposal, there is (because it doesn't require mod_rewrite).
Also, will using a mod_rewrite solution break existing links that Google has (thus probably dropping your score)? (I have no idea -- I'm not an Apache guru.)
With my suggestion, you can go back and existing links won't break.
It's hardly a slam. It's the equivalent of "different strokes for different folks" or the Spanish "De gustas nada es escrito" (I hope I got that right) -- "Of tastes, nothing is written."t_backoff wrote:Let's leave the preferential slams at the door, shall we?
Regardless, the existing URLs are incomprehensible to humans. My suggestion would fix that (regardless of SEO benefit), which is what this RFC is about, and could be implemented in days (if not hours). It also wouldn't prevent a longer-term solution (using mod_rewrite) if that was still deemed necessary. (But, if we're going to worry about SERPO, let's add META tag support for Description at least -- although that's a different RFC.)