|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/07/07 02:16
In article <BZidnSo5Z7OlBX3bnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <V0YDi.21$2A5.10@newsfe06.lga>,
> > "\"Crash\" Dummy" <dvader@deathstar.mil> wrote:
> >
> >>> I made an .htaccess file to allow my .html files to be parsed for
> >>> any php on them. It has:
> >>> AddType application/x-httpd-php .html
> >> For the reasons cited by others, I think that is a lousy idea. It is much
> >> simpler to selectively use the .php extension to mark html files with php
> >> code
> >> in them. If for some obscure reason you want all files to have the same
> >> extension and be parsed for php code, you can give them all the .php
> >> extension,
> >> even if they don't have any code. They will just be passed unchanged.
> >> --
> >
> > All the files have php in them.
> >
> > On another bigger site of mine, there had been heavy bookmarking
> > of files in the past, parsing for php on the .html files did not
> > disturb this. And not having to rename all and all internal links
> > and load up was saved. I was very pleased to have .html scanned
> > for php. Noticed no slowdown at all.
> >
> > But this is indeed an interesting side issue. <g>
> >
>
> *YOU* may not notice a slowdown, especially when it's a new site and
> you're the only one on it. But it takes a fair amount of system
> resources to set up the PHP environment. And on a shared host, you're
> taking resources from other, well-behaved sites.
>
> Why do you think your hosting company doesn't allow it?
Jerry, the server that prompted my question is the *only* one
that I have experienced that does not allow it. But I take your
point. In fact, the site this particular server is - on
reflection - not so hard to configure with .php endings. I am
awaiting a reply from server admin but am preparing to simply
change all links and files to .php if necessary.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|