Posted by dorayme on 11/21/06 21:39

In article <knE8h.10$Gt.9@newsfe07.lga>,
"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote:

> you've done your reading. however there are several other points you've NOT
> stated or realized. such as basic management. there are lots of technologies
> used in delivering content like html, cgi, shtml, xml, etc.. now, how will a
> team member know which is employed if all end in .html? further, some of
> these technologies are passed through an intermediary. what if i use php to
> dynamically generate xml but all my xml is passed through a verification
> program to meet a certain specification, and then delivered to the web?
> don't make things harder than they should be...there's a reason you'd have
> to beg 'server people' to purposely shoot themselves in the foot.

I appreciate in a hazy sort of way this theoretical picture...

For websites made and maintained by me, I use simple technology,
html and css, rarely even javascript. There is no question of
teams, others, xml, cgi, and most other fancy doodle things. But
I sure as hell like the idea of includes! And other possible php
things. And I am warming to the idea of renaming almost all the
files to .php and be done (they ALL have footers) there are NONE
that don't. They almost all have some form of templatish
navigation.

Am thinking to have .html for home pages and important section
head pages with all code hard wired in, (so important bookmarks
people have might work without me trying to do things to instruct
servers to link stuff (?) For the vast majority, I might go .php

Steve, this way I can avoid asking silly things of server people.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]