index.mobile.html is in trunk
On Aug 30, 8:19 am, Angelo Compagnucci <angelo.compagnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that the extension should match the content, it's more clear. > > For a json object I'm expecting a .json, an xml should have an xml > extension and so on. So for the mobile view I think the best is to > have a .mobi extension, but this is IMHO. > > Also using the .mobile.html could be viable, because a mobile view is > substantially an html file. > > For me it's ok to have .mobile.html extension > > 2011/8/30 Massimo Di Pierro <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > Unless there is a strong objection I will modify the code in trunk to > > use index.mobile.html > > > view = '.'.join(view.split().insert(-1,'mobile')) > > > On Aug 30, 2:13 am, Bruno Rocha <rochacbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Good point. Couldn't you also do something like index.mobi.html or > >> > index.html.mobi? I don't think these view names would necessarily have to > >> > be exposed as URLs -- they just need to be used server side to render the > >> > page appropriately. > > >> It is only a semantic issue, because the pattern for any API is terminating > >> with the extension format. .json, .xml, .csv . it is more elegant IMO than > >> x.json.mobi
