Posted by Andrew DeFaria on 01/26/06 07:40

d wrote:
> If I were to develop in ASP, I would have .html as well. The reason we
> don't use .html is simply because that's how web servers determine
> which pages need parsing.
That's also exactly why php files should have php as their extensions -
because that's the way that web servers determine which pages not only
need parsing, but which parsing (actually interpretation not just
parsing - hell strict HTML files need parsing!) it needs. To tax a web
server with the task of parsing everything that has a .html extension,
when many, perhaps most of them have no PHP in them whatsoever is just
plain stupid. And besides, some web sites have PHP, Perl, jsp, asp and
just regular old cgi stuff. How you gonna mash all of that into just
..html files?
> I don't like that, as the files, when downloaded, are straight HTML.
Well then don't like it all you want however there are good technical
reasons for the way it works and to buck such reasons and configure your
web server in such a way just because you don't like the way it's done
is foolishness.
--
What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?

[Back to original message]