Re: standard coding...
- From: Oli Filth <catch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:58:10 GMT
d said the following on 16/01/2006 15:19:
"David Haynes" <david.haynes2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:OHrxf.4737$08.1779@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThere's nothing magical about any suffix - it's just what you tell the server to be sensitive to. For example, I could change all the php files to have a 'pre' suffix to indicate that these files are 'pre'processed before displaying them.
Unfortunately, as long as certain browsers take notice of suffixes, they are somewhat magical. Making sure your extensions match your content is one sure-fire way to get round that :)
That's not always possible, though. Yes, one could set up the server to parse all .html requests as PHP, but what about dynamic images generated by PHP? To "match" the suffix there, you'd need to set the server to parse all .jpg, etc. files as PHP, which would be a sure-fire way to get bizarre behaviour ;)
-- Oli .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: standard coding...
- From: d
- Re: standard coding...
- References:
- standard coding...
- From: Domestos
- Re: standard coding...
- From: d
- Re: standard coding...
- From: David Haynes
- Re: standard coding...
- From: d
- standard coding...
- Prev by Date: Re: arithmetics with timestamp?
- Next by Date: Re: standard coding...
- Previous by thread: Re: standard coding...
- Next by thread: Re: standard coding...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|