Re: PHP and Search Engines

php@minotaur.nu wrote: > On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:18 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > > http://www.foo.bar/some/path/script.php/arg1/arg2 > >$PATH_INFO will contain "/arg1/arg2" > >... > >This makes things very flexible for you and you can keep your URLs nice > >and pretty. I hate big long ugly untypable URLs with a passion. URLs > >should be easy to guess. For example: > > http://www.foo.bar/products/widget > >That should give me information and the product called "widget". > > I'm just finishing off a website service with a good example of just > that technique. > > Paste the following into a file - example.html > <html> > <script language='JavaScript' > > src='http://alert.bigsites.co.uk/books/export/javascript/usercat/10/comp/12'> > </script> > </html> > > For now, it will output javascript (hence the script-block), but in > the future it can easily be extended to output XML, other text formats > - or a PHP 'serialize' dump to be 'unserialize'd and stored/output as > required. The other parts of the URL encode the user ID, source of > the data (http://www.computerbooks.uk.com) and the category of reviews > (Operating Systems) > > Alister > Interesting. What's not mentioned here is that this is basically a javascript #include. Neat idea. I'm wondering if there are any particular tradeoffs between this method and the use of something more banal like a simple: <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0, URL=http://alert.bigsites.co.uk/books/export/javascript/usercat/10/comp/12.html"> </HEAD> </HTML> assuming the page being loaded were html (or php, or whatever) vs. a bunch of javascript? -David Schwartz