Re: standard coding...
- From: "d" <d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:19:01 GMT
"David Haynes" <david.haynes2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> Ideally speaking, any file that spits out html should have an .html
>> extension, as when the client sees it, it's HTML (regardless of how it
>> was created). As others have pointed out, that will require a minor
>> change in your server's configuration, but yields more professional
> I'm not sure I agree with that. Isn't this a case of confusing naming with
> content? I know that, for reasons of speed, web servers like to tag
> content based on file suffixes, but I don't recall any of the standards
> bodies specifying it.
> Also, isn't a file that contains php a '.php'-suffixed file until it is
> processed and *then* becomes an HTML image? If so, the file doesn't 'spit
> out HTML' until it is preprocessed by php.
So the file, once spat out, should be called .html. Most web servers still
call php files .php even after they've been passed.
> AFAIK, the main reason for over-riding the .html extension to include php
> processing is so that the file displayed in the browser does not include
> the '.php' suffix and, therefore, does not tip off the end-user as to
> which preprocessing technology is being used. This was thought to be a
> security-related practice. It is similar to changing the '.do' suffix in
> struts to something else. (Security through obscurity.)
No, it's just a matter of having extensions matching the contents of the
file. I guess it's just being polite.
> There'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 :)
- Prev by Date: Re: Here is how to 'do PHP' without leaving a page. (+ Question)
- Next by Date: Re: arithmetics with timestamp?
- Previous by thread: Re: standard coding...
- Next by thread: Re: standard coding...