Static websites are on the rise due to their server rendering and progress approach. Devs are choosing one static site generator to another to keep their clients flexible. If found none, they develop their own.
I want to know, what's wrong with developing plain static web sites as same as the 90s which have .html extension in their URLs? We can make them too part static and part dynamic as we do while generating PWAs. What's ugly with URLs which end up with an extension like .html, .php, and .aspx?
Thank you very much for your time.
Top comments (1)
I wouldn't say it's ugly, but I absolutely think file extensions in URL's are a bad thing unless it's files that you expect the user to download.
Short list of reasons they're a bad thing in general:
Content-Type
header, so unless their browser is braindead, the extension just doesn't matter unless they're downloading the file and using Windows (because Windows is too stupid to look at the contents of the file to figure out what type of file it is)..php
,.aspx
, etc), you're actually making it harder to switch your tech stack if you ever need to (and more likely for such a switch to cause issues for your users).