Rick wrote in response to me:
The collection of links (viewed as pointers from one file to another) does not produce a tree. The directory hierarchy is a tree, but it
Not to belabor it, but are you sure? have you tried it?
Yup. It's a web.
Well, I won't try to stop you doing it, but I can't help having a "it's your funeral" reaction.
Ask not for whome the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. ;-) Actually, all the work is done.
I have other reasons for naming files the way that I do and I don't want to feel constrained by additional rules that I consider unnecessary.
The only "rule" is to denote language variants of a file with tags like -d, -e, _de, -en, _it, -f, -fr, and so forth. You're already doing this. tips.html and tips-d.html, for example. And if you don't want to do this, it is no big deal. The sitemap would look slightly askew (typically one variant would appear immediately subordinate to another) until someone fixes it (either by putting a hint in the sitemap file or, horrors, by renaming the files).
I still don't consider the filnames part of our public interface.
And so they aren't. The sitemap uses titles, not filenames, as the public interface.
And I don't personally want to work on making this scheme, which I consider built on shaky foundations, work.
1. It is already working (though not yet scheduled automatically). 2. You don't have to do any work. 3. If you can build something with a firmer foundation, please do. I know that you don't subscribe to the utility of a sitemap. No problem. But this exercise has at least shown to us that our site has some problems. Over 300 files can't be navigated to, which makes them as good as useless. What a colossal waste. -- =Jim Eggert EggertJ@LL.mit.edu