«

I have a ASP 3.0 web application that uses IIS 5.0 with W2K (with parent
paths enabled). In my research about migration to IIS6 with W2003 it says
that you need to change every INCLUDE FILE= to INCLUDE VIRTUAL=.

I call an ASP page at the root of the website and that ASP file has an
include that also is at the root, and the include is like this:

<!-- INCLUDE FILE="copyrightstuff.htm" -->

So what I've read say that this has to be changed to VIRTUAL like this:

<!-- INCLUDE VIRTUAL="/websitename/copyrightstuff.htm" -->

I could do this for one website that has one name listed in IIS. However, my
website code was designed to work on many different websites, each with
different domain names. It seems like a LOT of work to have to change ALL
the includes to accommodate the name given to the site in IIS.

Can I avoid all of these changes to INCLUDE files in 2003 by just allowing
parent paths for my applications?

Or, do I have to pick one and standardize the application name of the
website used in IIS? (where before the application name didn't matter at
all)

Thanks for the help.

Doesn't anyone use "classic" ASP with Windows 2003?

"Don Miller" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I have a ASP 3.0 web application that uses IIS 5.0 with W2K (with parent
> paths enabled). In my research about migration to IIS6 with W2003 it says
> that you need to change every INCLUDE FILE= to INCLUDE VIRTUAL=.
>
> I call an ASP page at the root of the website and that ASP file has an
> include that also is at the root, and the include is like this:
>
> <!-- INCLUDE FILE="copyrightstuff.htm" -->
>
> So what I've read say that this has to be changed to VIRTUAL like this:
>
> <!-- INCLUDE VIRTUAL="/websitename/copyrightstuff.htm" -->
>
> I could do this for one website that has one name listed in IIS. However,
my
> website code was designed to work on many different websites, each with
> different domain names. It seems like a LOT of work to have to change ALL
> the includes to accommodate the name given to the site in IIS.
>
> Can I avoid all of these changes to INCLUDE files in 2003 by just allowing
> parent paths for my applications?
>
> Or, do I have to pick one and standardize the application name of the
> website used in IIS? (where before the application name didn't matter at
> all)
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
>

Yes, i've just never run into your problem.
We have only intranet applications so we have Parent Paths enabled for
all applications. I'm not sure this is a good idea security-wise for
internet applications.

Don Miller wrote:
> Doesn't anyone use "classic" ASP with Windows 2003?
>
> "Don Miller" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> I have a ASP 3.0 web application that uses IIS 5.0 with W2K (with
>> parent paths enabled). In my research about migration to IIS6 with
>> W2003 it says that you need to change every INCLUDE FILE= to INCLUDE
>> VIRTUAL=.
>>
>> I call an ASP page at the root of the website and that ASP file has
>> an include that also is at the root, and the include is like this:
>>
>> <!-- INCLUDE FILE="copyrightstuff.htm" -->
>>
>> So what I've read say that this has to be changed to VIRTUAL like
>> this:
>>
>> <!-- INCLUDE VIRTUAL="/websitename/copyrightstuff.htm" -->
>>
>> I could do this for one website that has one name listed in IIS.
>> However, my website code was designed to work on many different
>> websites, each with different domain names. It seems like a LOT of
>> work to have to change ALL the includes to accommodate the name
>> given to the site in IIS.
>>
>> Can I avoid all of these changes to INCLUDE files in 2003 by just
>> allowing parent paths for my applications?
>>
>> Or, do I have to pick one and standardize the application name of the
>> website used in IIS? (where before the application name didn't
>> matter at all)
>>
>> Thanks for the help.

--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.