|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/21/06 05:07
Here is a typical thing I see in docs on including files:
"1. Naming Your Final Pages
Files which use SSI includes need to be named with an extension
that alerts the server to check for include directives before
serving the page. The most commonly used one is .shtml, but .shtm
is also used. Most servers will not parse .htm or .html files for
SSI but they can be configured to do so. Generally speaking this
is only practical if you have a dedicated server since
configuring the server to parse .html files would cause all
standard HTML files served to be first parsed (or checked) for
SSI, a situation which would cause some strain on the server."
What strikes me is that if one is going to have includes in one's
html files, for things like footers... then all pages are likely
to have footers and need server checking for includes of whatever
sort... so why is this sort of thing so often said? What phantoms
are being warned against? Are they practical realities (Yes, I
can imagine someone might have a whole bunnch of things without
includes just as I can imagine a fat super greedy man at a
smorgasboard not eating everything in sight.
When I mention a reluctance to change all my files to end in .php
or .shtml, similar warnings are given. It is said that to ask the
server to check all the html files is a strain on the server,
slows down the delivery of the page to the end user etc.
But if all the pages have footers etc, then what is the point of
not configuring the server to check all a site's html pages?
There may be things I am not cottoning onto here. Almost
certainly! I know one reason it is better to not let the .html
files be checked: it is not easy to configure remote unix servers
to do this without begging server people.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|