Path and file extension names considerations in SEO.

Hello Folks!


A little background:
I'm a web developer - and I'm starting on a new project (well actualy allready started it). I'm using Perl and some nice modules (classes) for a framework. I've used them before - but now I want to take it to the next level.

This framework (called CGI::Application - there are ports to other languages such as PHP, Ruby and Python) with some plugins enables you to call it with something like :
www.site.com/index.pl/something/here

Where "something" is actualy a module name (class/object) and "here" stands for run mode (method) which will be called.

I've seen this method of putting some (or all) parameters in the path over the internet but wondering if it could be better from a SEO point of view to have something else instead of index.pl?

Maybe www.site.com/app/something/here would for some reason be better?

I was also thinking about using www.site.com/something/here and mapping that (mod_rewrite) to the upper mentioned. But it complicate things when comes to url mapping (what if there is /something/here/ folder and index.html in it - for instance).

You see, plan is to have whole sites developed by using this framework.


Other thing is file name extension.

I want to provide some sort of templating system that would be similar to SSI - dont wory, I'm ussing full blown templating system from the application when it has to output something. This would be used to enable "plain people" to include some of the plugins (say a counter, or anything else that would be used from more than one page on the site) or variables (user name, some session info ...) that are available to the application.

To make a distinction among plain html files and template files (which would be handeled by the application and not just Apache) easiest method would be to give them different extensions.

I was thinking about simply *.tmpl but wondering if there would be any "problems" or naming it as something "regular" would be better. In that case I would probably use *.html for plain html files and *.htm for templates.

Only problem there could exist with it, is that plain html files would be (when it's not needed) proccesed by the application to return same thing as the file is (as there would be no template tags). And it's a performance question ...

Thanks.