Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > html shtml

Reply
Thread Tools

html shtml

 
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2009
Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
suffuxes? I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
side includes requires shtml.

www.richardfisher.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2009
Helpful person wrote:
> Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> suffuxes? I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> side includes requires shtml.


Exactly, that's the difference. Do you think that that's a "fake"
difference?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2009
Helpful person wrote:
> Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> suffuxes?


Yes, an 's'


> I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> side includes requires shtml.


Yes, most servers are setup to identify which documents are static HTML
(*.html) versus those requiring server side include processing (*.shtml)
Similarly with PHP using (*.php). It is an economy thing, why bother
troubling the server looking to parse the document looking for SSI or
PHP to process when it is a simple static HTML document?


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2009
On Jul 20, 12:51*pm, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> suffuxes? *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> side includes requires shtml.
>
> www.richardfisher.com


Thanks all.

www.richardfisher.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2009
On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> suffuxes?


Yes and no.

No, if you mean a suffix(sic) in a URL.

Yes, if you mean a file extension to a piece of content stored in a
web server's filesystem. The difference is visible to the web server
and the web server's configuration might be (and frequently is)
different for each file type. As you say:

> *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> side includes requires shtml.


The problem with this is that it introduces "coupling" (a software
design term) between the URLs to pages and their implementation. If
you want to re-implement a page that was previously static into
something more dynamic, then the URL to it would need to change and so
would all the referring links. For this reason it's now generally
considered good practice to hide this sort of detail from URLs and
keep it "under the hood".
 
Reply With Quote
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2009
On Jul 21, 11:06*am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> > suffuxes?

>
> Yes and no.
>
> No, if you mean a suffix(sic) in a URL.
>
> Yes, if you mean a file extension to a piece of content stored in a
> web server's filesystem. The difference is visible to the web server
> and the web server's configuration might be (and frequently is)
> different for each file type. As you say:
>
> > *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> > side includes requires shtml.

>
> The problem with this is that it introduces "coupling" (a software
> design term) between the URLs to pages and their implementation. If
> you want to re-implement a page that was previously static into
> something more dynamic, then the URL to it would need to change and so
> would all the referring links. For this reason it's now generally
> considered good practice to hide this sort of detail from URLs and
> keep it "under the hood".


It would have been nice if I didn't have to change from html to shtml
for my web site. I rewrote the site (previously FrontPage) and as I
used server side includes needed (for my host) to change the
extensions. Then I had to have several new pages (html extension) to
redirect to the new pages (shtml) so that the search engines can still
find me. A bit messy but not too much work.

www.richardfisher.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
MotzaBall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2009
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jul 21, 11:06*am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
>> > suffuxes?

>>
>> Yes and no.
>>
>> No, if you mean a suffix(sic) in a URL.
>>
>> Yes, if you mean a file extension to a piece of content stored in a
>> web server's filesystem. The difference is visible to the web server
>> and the web server's configuration might be (and frequently is)
>> different for each file type. As you say:
>>
>> > *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
>> > side includes requires shtml.

>>
>> The problem with this is that it introduces "coupling" (a software
>> design term) between the URLs to pages and their implementation. If
>> you want to re-implement a page that was previously static into
>> something more dynamic, then the URL to it would need to change and so
>> would all the referring links. For this reason it's now generally
>> considered good practice to hide this sort of detail from URLs and
>> keep it "under the hood".

>
>It would have been nice if I didn't have to change from html to shtml
>for my web site. I rewrote the site (previously FrontPage) and as I
>used server side includes needed (for my host) to change the
>extensions. Then I had to have several new pages (html extension) to
>redirect to the new pages (shtml) so that the search engines can still
>find me. A bit messy but not too much work.
>
>www.richardfisher.com


You don't have to do all that.


AddType text/html .shtml .shtm .htm .html
AddHandler server-parsed .shtml .shtm .htm .html

Put that in your htaccess file and it'll parse the ssi into the pages.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2009
On Jul 21, 11:38*am, MotzaBall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jul 21, 11:06*am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> > Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> >> > suffuxes?

>
> >> Yes and no.

>
> >> No, if you mean a suffix(sic) in a URL.

>
> >> Yes, if you mean a file extension to a piece of content stored in a
> >> web server's filesystem. The difference is visible to the web server
> >> and the web server's configuration might be (and frequently is)
> >> different for each file type. As you say:

>
> >> > *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> >> > side includes requires shtml.

>
> >> The problem with this is that it introduces "coupling" (a software
> >> design term) between the URLs to pages and their implementation. If
> >> you want to re-implement a page that was previously static into
> >> something more dynamic, then the URL to it would need to change and so
> >> would all the referring links. For this reason it's now generally
> >> considered good practice to hide this sort of detail from URLs and
> >> keep it "under the hood".

>
> >It would have been nice if I didn't have to change from html to shtml
> >for my web site. *I rewrote the site (previously FrontPage) and as I
> >used server side includes needed (for my host) to change the
> >extensions. *Then I had to have several new pages (html extension) to
> >redirect to the new pages (shtml) so that the search engines can still
> >find me. *A bit messy but not too much work.

>
> >www.richardfisher.com

>
> You don't have to do all that.
>
> AddType text/html .shtml .shtm .htm .html
> AddHandler server-parsed .shtml .shtm .htm .html
>
> Put that in your htaccess file and it'll parse the ssi into the pages.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Thanks, I'll check it out. (I assume the htaccess file is a file held
by my host.)

www.richardfisher.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Newzie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2009
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:

> On Jul 21, 11:38*am, MotzaBall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Jul 21, 11:06*am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>>>> > Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
>>>> > suffuxes?

>>
>>>> Yes and no.

>>
>>>> No, if you mean a suffix(sic) in a URL.

>>
>>>> Yes, if you mean a file extension to a piece of content stored in a
>>>> web server's filesystem. The difference is visible to the web server
>>>> and the web server's configuration might be (and frequently is)
>>>> different for each file type. As you say:

>>
>>>> > *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
>>>> > side includes requires shtml.

>>
>>>> The problem with this is that it introduces "coupling" (a software
>>>> design term) between the URLs to pages and their implementation. If
>>>> you want to re-implement a page that was previously static into
>>>> something more dynamic, then the URL to it would need to change and so
>>>> would all the referring links. For this reason it's now generally
>>>> considered good practice to hide this sort of detail from URLs and
>>>> keep it "under the hood".

>>
>>>It would have been nice if I didn't have to change from html to shtml
>>>for my web site. *I rewrote the site (previously FrontPage) and as I
>>>used server side includes needed (for my host) to change the
>>>extensions. *Then I had to have several new pages (html extension) to
>>>redirect to the new pages (shtml) so that the search engines can still
>>>find me. *A bit messy but not too much work.

>>
>>>www.richardfisher.com

>>
>> You don't have to do all that.
>>
>> AddType text/html .shtml .shtm .htm .html
>> AddHandler server-parsed .shtml .shtm .htm .html
>>
>> Put that in your htaccess file and it'll parse the ssi into the pages.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Thanks, I'll check it out. (I assume the htaccess file is a file held
> by my host.)
>
> www.richardfisher.com


Nope
You create a txt file, put that in, then upload to your html root.
Rename .htaccess
With the .(dot)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2009
On Jul 21, 2:45*pm, Newzie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:38*am, MotzaBall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person

>
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>On Jul 21, 11:06*am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>>> > Could someone tell me if there is any real difference between the two
> >>>> > suffuxes?

>
> >>>> Yes and no.

>
> >>>> No, if you mean a suffix(sic) in a URL.

>
> >>>> Yes, if you mean a file extension to a piece of content stored in a
> >>>> web server's filesystem. The difference is visible to the web server
> >>>> and the web server's configuration might be (and frequently is)
> >>>> different for each file type. As you say:

>
> >>>> > *I know of one, which is that on my server to use server
> >>>> > side includes requires shtml.

>
> >>>> The problem with this is that it introduces "coupling" (a software
> >>>> design term) between the URLs to pages and their implementation. If
> >>>> you want to re-implement a page that was previously static into
> >>>> something more dynamic, then the URL to it would need to change and so
> >>>> would all the referring links. For this reason it's now generally
> >>>> considered good practice to hide this sort of detail from URLs and
> >>>> keep it "under the hood".

>
> >>>It would have been nice if I didn't have to change from html to shtml
> >>>for my web site. *I rewrote the site (previously FrontPage) and as I
> >>>used server side includes needed (for my host) to change the
> >>>extensions. *Then I had to have several new pages (html extension) to
> >>>redirect to the new pages (shtml) so that the search engines can still
> >>>find me. *A bit messy but not too much work.

>
> >>>www.richardfisher.com

>
> >> You don't have to do all that.

>
> >> AddType text/html .shtml .shtm .htm .html
> >> AddHandler server-parsed .shtml .shtm .htm .html

>
> >> Put that in your htaccess file and it'll parse the ssi into the pages.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> > Thanks, I'll check it out. *(I assume the htaccess file is a file held
> > by my host.)

>
> >www.richardfisher.com

>
> Nope
> You create a txt file, put that in, then upload to your html root.
> Rename .htaccess
> With the .(dot)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Thanks

www.richardfisher.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: html shtml Helpful person HTML 0 07-20-2009 06:06 PM
html to shtml Gary HTML 3 01-09-2007 09:51 AM
Differences between HTML,SHTML,XML etc. - resizing images - dial-up simulation The Eclectic Electric HTML 4 09-11-2005 09:12 AM
How to get VS IDE to recognize .shtml docs as html Kenneth Baltrinic ASP .Net 2 11-20-2003 01:33 PM
EXEC CGI Works Only with .SHTML? Not with .HTML? vertigo HTML 1 06-28-2003 08:23 AM



Advertisments