http://weblogs.asp.net/jasonsalas/archive/2005/05/01/405209.aspxOne of the things that's bugged me for years is when sites include DLLs in their generated page URLs. It's non-intuitive, damages the potential marketability (a URL's sexiness) of the site, reeks of 1998 web practices, debatably a security risk, and basicallyenCommunityServer 2007 SP1 (Build: 20510.895)http://weblogs.asp.net/jasonsalas/archive/2005/05/01/405209.aspx#405243Sun, 01 May 2005 23:40:00 GMTc06e2b9d-981a-45b4-a55f-ab0d8bbfdc1c:405243jayson knightjayson knighteBay used to use dll's in the URL IIRC, but they reworked it and just have nice succinct URL's. Nextel uses it as well for sending text messages, always thought it was really annoying and just kind of strange.<img src="http://weblogs.asp.net/aggbug.aspx?PostID=405243" width="1" height="1">http://weblogs.asp.net/jasonsalas/archive/2005/05/01/405209.aspx#405226Sun, 01 May 2005 18:29:00 GMTc06e2b9d-981a-45b4-a55f-ab0d8bbfdc1c:405226Scott MitchellScott MitchellI agree, DLLs in a URL are less than ideal. But, honestly, I don't have any REAL issue with a site's URL scheme AS LONG AS THEY REMEMBER IT'S A PUBLIC INTERFACE! [<a target="_new" href="http://scottonwriting.net/sowblog/posts/3523.aspx">http://scottonwriting.net/sowblog/posts/3523.aspx</a>] Namely, so long as they don't go off and *change* their URL scheme and don't use URL rewriting or intelligent redirects to handle the now broken URLs on their site.<img src="http://weblogs.asp.net/aggbug.aspx?PostID=405226" width="1" height="1">