|
Posted by d on 01/26/06 12:46
"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:43d860b8$0$95963$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>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.
Which was my point. It's a side-effect of the limitations of the web
server.
> 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.
See how much extra work it gives apache - very little indeed. So little, in
fact, that you don't even notice it. Thanks for calling it stupid, though
:)
> 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?
Not everyone does that. Of course some websites do that, but not all. In
fact, not even most. Very few will mix all those technologies, or even
subsets of them, on the same server.
>> 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.
There are no good technical reasons for it. It's done as a short-cut to
allow the server to figure out what is what. I'm saying that figuring out
what is what is not always necessary, and I certainly don't want the
presentation of my site to be deteriorated due to a perceived problem that
isn't even a problem :)
> --
> What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?
[Back to original message]
|