[WEB4LIB] Subject: Re: In re includes

[Darryl Friesen]

> However, since my face is already red, go ahead and smear some egg on it.
> May I naively ask: what the heck's the difference?  I mean, why not use the
> .shtml extension and just parse the one file?  Why do I keep encountering
> such passion on this topic?  Is there something else about the .shtml
> extension we should know?  (I mean, other than why make an unnecessary
> change... or have to tell users to use specific extensions... though this is
> a good point in and of itself, simplicity being a Good and True Virtue; or
> perhaps, simply the point of "it's just not true," which I also believe is
> compelling--we do not need old spouses' tales in web development)

.shtml is also not an obvious choice to users (because of the proliferation of
.html files).  When I visit your site, should I use shtml or html when I type
in the URL?  It becomes especially hard to remember when shtml and html are
mixed on a site.

The Apache server (and possibly others) allow selective processing of .html
files for SSI using file permissions (although this probably only work on Unix
systems).  If the .html file is marked executable, then it's parsed for SSI;
otherwise it's just passed to the client as normal.  This seems a nice
compromise.  :)

Look at the XBitHack directive in the Apache documentation.


- Darryl

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Darryl Friesen, B.Sc., Programmer/Analyst    Darryl.Friesen at usask.ca
   Consulting & Development                     http://gollum.usask.ca/
   Department of Computing Services                 163 Murray Building
   University of Saskatchewan                              Main Library
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  "The Truth Is Out There"