Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/07/07 12:22

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(J.O. Aho)
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> All the files have php in them.
>> Then use .php
>
> No. Either .html or no extension at all in the URL (preferred).
>
>>> 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.
>> You will pain yourself into a corner if you try to be backward compatible with
>> the links.
>
> Breaking incoming links is the worst you can do ("Cool URIs don't
> change"). It leads to link rot, which annoys users and search engines.
>
>>> And not having to rename all and all internal links
>>> and load up was saved.
>> Internal links is easy to fix with sed, will just take a few seconds to fix
>> them all, in all files.
>
> You wouldn't have to change anything if it's done correctly right from
> the beginning and if you would think about your URL design before
> publishing anything.
>
>>> I was very pleased to have .html scanned
>>> for php. Noticed no slowdown at all.
>> You would notice the difference if you measure the CPU usage while the server
>> serves pages
>
> Are you on an i486 machine?
>
>> the loading of php will be on each page instead of just sending
>> out the page.
>
> That's what a server is for, especially since she said that all pages
> contain PHP. Of course there are also other ways to run PHP without any
> .php extension in URLs.
>
> Micha

Micha,

Don't start this argument again. It is NOT what the W3 Consortium is
saying!

It doesn't matter what machine you're on. There is significant
additional processing required to parse files unnecessarily. That's
probably why his host disabled it - they know and understand the impact.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]