[example] Make sure next.js Links can accept url objects as href

[Janpot]

next.js links can accept parsed url objects, this PR makes sure the material ui wrapper in the example can accept these as well.

• I have followed (at least) the PR section of the contributing guide.

[mui-pr-bot]

No bundle size changes comparing e170593...d0c4bc6

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against d0c4bc6

[oliviertassinari]

It's documented in https://nextjs.org/docs/api-reference/next/link#with-url-object.

[oliviertassinari]

@Janpot Thanks :).

I had a look at the table of content link issue, it doesn't seem that Next.js will prioritize a fix. If you want to apply the proposed patch in the issue you have open, I think that we could move forward with it.

[Janpot]

@oliviertassinari I'm not 100% sure about the activeClass implementation in this example, I think it will behave differently whether you supply a string or a url object and href contains query parameters. Should the activeClass take query parameters into account?

regarding the hash links, I remember trying out the proposed fix and getting strange behavior, especially around trailing slashes. It seems like exportTrailingSlash is treated as a legacy option by the next.js team. Would it make sense to rather search for a way to remove this option from material-ui docs?

[oliviertassinari]

Should the activeClass take query parameters into account?

I think that it should ignore query parameters.

Would it make sense to rather search for a way to remove this option from material-ui docs?

The biggest unknown is the SEO impact.

[Janpot]

@oliviertassinari As long as pages with and without trailing slash either 301 redirect to the same url or have the same canonical url, the SEO impact should be none/minimal. In the meantime I opened vercel/next.js#9973

[oliviertassinari]

Unless Google has some specific logic for handling trailing vs no trailing, introducting a 301 would impact ranking for a couple of months. We have already experienced it with v3 to v4 pathname renames.

[Janpot]

Unless Google has some specific logic for handling trailing vs no trailing, introducting a 301 would impact ranking for a couple of months. We have already experienced it with v3 to v4 pathname renames.

I'd be surprised if they didn't already handle that specific case, but I don't want to introduce new redirects, the current situation 301 redirects non-trailing to trailing and that's good.

[oliviertassinari]

OK, maybe we will be able to remove exportTrailingSlash.