Re: PHP-Yes, HTML-No --- Why?

d wrote:
Here's a hint - they couldn't give a rat's ass what the extension is.
Not everyone, but some people.
No most people! Take this thread as an example. You are arguing to have ..html at the end of every URL even if the file contains PHP or another scripting language. At least 4 people in this thread alone disagree with you. That would be 80% agree with me and 20% agree with you (with you, the only person mind you, in your camp). By that very figure you are in the minority and I'd venture to guess the the number of people who really, really care about such trivial things such as yourself is probably closer to .1% in the real population.
  And if you cater for those people, it suddenly gets very important.
Yes to all of those neurotic people I supposed...
FTP requests are not HTTP.
So what? Should all files that are ftp'ed have a .ftp extension?!?
We are talking about web servers, not FTP servers.  I thought you would understand that.
If your logic were to be taken consistently then would it not likewise extend to to ftp? Come on Mr. Consistency!
When your browser gets files from ftp://, it's not a web browser any more but an FTP client.
No it's still a web browser, doing ftp protocol.
FTP is not part of the web.  It's part of the internet, but not part of the web.  Again, I thought you would understand that.
I do understand that - but my browser also understands ftp protocols as well as many other types (gopher (remember gopher), mailto (a pseudo thing at best but still - it's in there), telnet, ftp and others. There all part of the RFCs. Indeed the whole thing about the browser and the World Wide Web was to tie these desperate, different and confusing to the layperson protocols in a point and click interface. That's why URL's were conceived and conceived to handle not just http, but other protocol types. Just because http is the most popular does not mean it's the only part of the web. Indeed that's one of the very reasons why the original (well as of 3.0 and greater) Netscape included a mail reader, news readers, etc.
I said pissing match, not pissing.
A pissing match starts when somebody starts pissing junk.
Fantastic.  Really great work.
Hey I can piss with the best of them - or, in this case, the worse of them... :-)
I never said the server should parse MP3 files or whatever, as I'm not generating them dynamically.
What does it matter if you are doing it dynamically or not?
Apparently it does to you - as you want your dynamically-generated content to be called .php, as that's how it should be "by design".
I see no reason to change the fact that this web page came from a file that had a .php extension. Indeed I see it as useful in that it is a sign that the content is dynamic and/or generated as opposed to static. By renaming things to html you lose that distinction, which can be helpful at times.

The point about MP3 files is that if you configure your web server to treat every file as potentially having dynamic content and that it should search through the entire file looking to determine exactly which language might be in use in the file and hand it off to the appropriate parser, interpreter or module then you are gonna have to contend with the fact that occasionally (and on some sites much more than occasionally) you're gonna be charging the web server with reading and parsing potentially huge files - all in the name of a foolish consistency.
It's not a fetish.  It's called presentation.
No it's called necrosis! As for presentation what's important is CONTENT stupid!
Just because you can't care less doesn't mean those visiting your site don't.
As I said, I've never, ever had anybody say "Great site but I won't use it until they have URL's that end in .html".
My tests have shown, to me at least, that the performance hit is a myth.
For 150 files, perhaps.
Repeatedly, about 50 times.
Yes, right, only after 3 of use pointed out that 150 files are not statistically significant. Nor is 50 times of 150 files. A lot depends on the sizes of the files, the configuration of the server, how much memory is currently being used, how busy it is, etc. Again, your "test" is not statistically significant. Come back to use after you've figured out how to do thousands of hits a minute and run it for a few hours.
It's not wasteful.
How could it not be? You do understand how computers work don't you? You do understand that extra processing is indeed happening. You do understand that under large numbers of accesses such small differences in processing time add up don't you?!?
I also know how the PHP module works.  I can see that the extra processing is negligable compared to other factors affecting the server.  My tests have shown that.
No, they haven't.
  If what you say is true, my html test server should have repeatedly out-performed the html-parsing one.  It didn't.
When you run such puny tests it's extremely hard to say. You are also not in a controlled environment in any way, shape or form. A discrepancy such as you claim can easily be explained but a small demand on the server from anything from cron to a swap.
You wouldn't want your design sloppy,
I don't find it sloppy. Indeed I find it very logical. 
Logical from the web server's perspective, not the user's.
As a user I find your answer odd. I also find it logical from a user's perspective. I would find it illogical for it to say .html when I know that .html represents static HTML yet I got a dynamic page!
As websites are coded to make the user happy, not the webserver, that's a pretty poor excuse.
Yes you are using pretty poor excuses! Stop that!
so why your URLs?  The site is a whole - asking someone to ignore the mess in the address bar because "it's just the way the web server works" is a bit silly.  It's supposed to work for you, not the other way round :)
Again, nobody cares about what characters are in the URL. If they did they'd start screaming about the silly http:'s and the &parm=<long assed string of junk characters> and the like. The .php or .html at the end is one of the least things to be concerned about!
Just saying "but nobody cares" doesn't make them not care.
3 other people have repeated what I said - Nobody cares. You are the sole person saying that people care. That's a 80 to 20% against (guess who?) - YOU.
And as for the query string - I agree with you.  I don't use query strings.
Your sites then must not have very much functionality or utility - but their URLs look nice! ;-)
Just because it's least concerning doesn't make it not concerning at all.  It's like making a painting and putting it in a crappy frame.
No, again, it's like making a painting then scribbling on the back of the painting that nobody sees nor cares about.
--
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?