> Some famous programmer once wrote about how links should last forever.
You're probably thinking of W3C's guidance: https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
> But he was wrong, it should be /foo/bar.html because the end-result will always be HTML
20 years ago, it wasn't obvious at all that the end-result would always be HTML (in particular, various styled forms of XML was thought to eventually take over). And in any case, there's no reason to have the content-type in the URL; why would the user care about that?
There's strong precedence for associating file extensions with content types. And it allows static files to map 1:1 to URLs.
I agree though that I was too harsh, I didn't realize it was written in 1998 when HTML was still new. I probably first read it around 2010.
But now that we have hindsight, I think it's safe to say .html files will continue to be supported for the next 50 years.