-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 712
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Are the .html extensions really necessary in URLs? #2250
Comments
@Gerrit0 mentioned before that they still want typedoc to support not using a web server. Right now, you just open any typedoc-generated HTML file locally (e.g. |
Yep, exactly, eventually I want to do #2111, which will enable this, among other things, but haven't gotten around to doing it yet. |
Yeah, opening the site locally might be useful while initially working on the configuration, but all my other web projects come with a way to start a simple local browser, on a localhost port, and I never felt the need to open the site directly from the file system. I guess that it wouldn't be very difficult to add this functionality to It would be useful that a future version to generate sites without the .html extensions. |
Even if nobody else uses it, it's extremely useful to me, I'll frequently have several different projects/versions built locally when testing, it's nice to be able to just open up a built file rather than starting a temporary web server to check something for five minutes |
Did you add support for short URLs? Since I can't find details on how to configure it. |
No, it's being tracked as a part of #2111 |
Ok, I subscribed to #2111 to get updates when you address this issue. |
after typedoc use express to host it for * links and if it not found you can add a custom 404 page ig |
Search terms
URL, html
Question
I was wondering whether the use of explicit
.html
file extensions in the URLs generated by TypeDoc is of any special value, compared to the shorter folder type URLs.For example the
Logger
class in one of my projects has the following URL:Personally I expected something like:
In my opinion, the second URL is generally preferred, as being easier to use as a link and (subjectively) looking nicer.
Is there any reason (that I'm missing) for using the
.html
URLs?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: