+---
+
+> I would like to suggest another tack, namely a bigger, better special case.
+> The basic idea is that all indices of the form foo/bar/index get the wiki path foo/bar.
+> This makes some things more elegant:
+>
+> * All files having to do with foo/bar are in the foo/bar directory, rather
+> than the (admittedly minor) wart of having the index be in foo/.
+> * This sort of addresses [[bugs/broken_parentlinks]] in that example/ is
+> guaranteed to be a valid path. (There might be no index there, though.)
+> * This is more in line with standard HTML practice, as far as I understand it,
+> namely that linking to a/b means a/b/index.html rather than a/b.html.
+>
+> This would change the inline plugin in strange ways -- I think if foo/index.html
+> contains \[[inline "* and !*/Discussion"]], it should skip inlining foo/index.html
+> explicitly, but would inline index pages in child directories
+> foo/bar/baz/index.html as bar/baz.
+>
+> It always bothers me that foo/bar/ files need a foo/bar.html in front of them,
+> rather than a foo/bar/index.html, as is (to my mind) traditional.
+>
+> Ethan
+>
+> Hmm, now I've had time to think about this, and this does conflict pretty hard with foo.html/Discussion
+> pages. Well, back to the drawing board.
+>
+> Well, it seems unlikely that you'll have both foo/bar.html and foo/bar/index.html,
+> so why not accept either as foo/bar? This would both preserve backwards
+> compatibility, as well as allow foo/bar/Discussion.
+>
+> Ethan
+>
+> No, in order for this to work, the wiki path foo/bar/baz could be any of:
+>
+> * foo/bar/baz.html
+> * foo/index/bar/index/baz.html
+> * foo/bar/index/baz.html
+> * foo/bar/index/baz/index.html
+>
+> Or many others. Which is probably even hackier than having both foo.html and foo/.
+>
+> Ethan
\ No newline at end of file