My situation is. I have a project planned to be built on ASP.NET MVC 2. And one of the major requirements is SEO optimization. A customer wants to use static-like URLs that end up with .html extension for this project that make URLs more SEO friendly. E.g. "mysite.com/about.html " or "mysite.com/items/getitem/5.html" etc.
I wonder is there any benefit from SEO perspective to use .html extension in dynamic URLs? Are Google and other search engines rank work better with such URLs?
file upload working in one and not the other help
Can classic asp and ASP.NET MVC run side-by-side on the same site?
If you're serving dynamic content in .aspx or .html, it's all the same.
Setting a default value — presentation logic or business logic?
If you do serve ASP.NET content with .html because of requirements (as dumb as they may be), then I suggest finding an alternative extension (e.g.
Suggestions/Recommendations for a Web Application with Sub-Apps
.htm) for all static content.
Dynamic content in static content
You don't want your static HTML files getting processed unnecessarily..
Id with / causes problems with routing [duplicate]
As Femaref said, you can use sitemaps to help..
How to define route & controller structure for 2 controllers?
Also, make sure your URL doesn't change (including variables) if the content is the same.
This shouldn't be a problem with MVC.. Edit: In your example: mysite.com/items/getitem/5.html. I'm guessing what you originally wanted is: mysite.com/items/getitem/5. No extension doesn't make a difference either.
Since that's not a problem, I would also argue that an extension makes the URL less "clean" and also suggests that there is a file called 5.html in that path, which is obviously not true..
- Can the page be reached?
- Is there content?
- Are there links pointing to that page?
Anyone can create a custom solution using custom file extensions for a website and have it work just fine..