Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:34:12 -0800
d wrote:Hmmm...Hmmmm... That logic doesn't even make sense. You can have a Perl script or a .exe file that "spits out" just text. Should such files have a .txt extension?!? The .html signifies that the file contains HTML - and prettyThe user is getting a file from your web server, an HTML file, and it has an extension of something other than HTML. jupiter:wget http://defaria.comYet the index file on my site is index.php. So surely you must mean they "get" it with a browser and thus the URL has a .php at the end of it. Oh horrors! What if the kids see it! You're sick man! Having your files named due to your servers requirements is a bit selfish, in my opinion.Hmmm.... "Doesn't look good" and "selfish". Persuasive arguments indeed! Would you rather that the server change the URL typed in from ..php -> .html and then be pointing at a file that doesn't exist or is it you want the server to have to parse each and every file for every thing known and thus slow down everybody - just so you can see ..html instead of .php? A foolish argument at best. Not to mention it makes websites look terrible.Oh yes looks horrible - how have we stood for this for so long! It's a crying shame! Content headers are not always sent. For example, an ftp:// style URL doesn't send them I believe. There are many other reasons for a mime.types file. The point (which you missed) was that many things, processes, applications etc make use of file extensions for the purposes of determining what type a file is - and rightly so.Why do you think that browsers shouldn't determine the contents of the file from it's extension? Truth is it does, multiple times over in many, many different occasions. Ever hear of mime.types? Ever actually configureheader sent. Of course I have configured apache servers. I don't want to get into a pissing match here,Well you started first by pissing and moaning about URLs not having ..html extensions... but please rest assured I've configured some massive apache setups on some very expensive hardware for some very big clients paying very good money :) That's all I'll say about that, as it's a vulgar subject at best.I hope you weren't configuring them as per your personal likes and dislikes but instead were configuring them as per the customer requirements and for speed, etc. Or, if we have properly-coded modules for our web servers.Define proper! I think they are proper right now. They work as they are stated to work and they take into account very real world limitations and constraints and don't waste time on essentially cosmetic crap! We're not hosting things on 386s any more.Who said we were? Not I! We have gigahertz of power to play with,Yes so that means we must waste time? You're logic is strange indeed sir. and checking a file for "<?" or "<?php" funnily enough doesn't take a cluster of supercomputers. It's not rocket science :)No, implementing an algorithm to do that is not difficult - it's wasteful. Should the server likewise scan through a 30 Meg mp3 file? A 7 meg bmp file? What if the server find such strings in a <pre> section or in a .txt file? Lots of considerations that you don't even seem to acknowledge as you are probably have never designed and written software before. Again there are very good reasons not to do this and you offer up only emotional "Well it doesn't look right" reasons which quite frankly carry very little to 0 weight. -- Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory. - Oscar Wilde |
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: d
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- References:
- PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Lennart Björk
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Barry
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Lennart Björk
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Barry
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Lennart Björk
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: d
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Lennart Björk
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: d
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: Andrew DeFaria
- Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- From: d
- PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- Prev by Date: Re: storing classes
- Next by Date: Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- Previous by thread: Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- Next by thread: Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|