html shtml

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Helpful person, Jul 20, 2009.

  1. 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
    Helpful person, Jul 20, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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?
    Harlan Messinger, Jul 20, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 20, 2009
    #3
  4. On Jul 20, 12:51 pm, 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.
    >
    > www.richardfisher.com


    Thanks all.

    www.richardfisher.com
    Helpful person, Jul 20, 2009
    #4
  5. Helpful person

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <> 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".
    Andy Dingley, Jul 21, 2009
    #5
  6. On Jul 21, 11:06 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    > On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <> 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
    Helpful person, Jul 21, 2009
    #6
  7. Helpful person

    MotzaBall Guest

    On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
    <> wrote:

    >On Jul 21, 11:06 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    >> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <> 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.
    MotzaBall, Jul 21, 2009
    #7
  8. On Jul 21, 11:38 am, MotzaBall <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 21, 11:06 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    > >> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <> 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
    Helpful person, Jul 21, 2009
    #8
  9. Helpful person

    Newzie Guest

    On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:

    > On Jul 21, 11:38 am, MotzaBall <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>>On Jul 21, 11:06 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    >>>> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <> 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)
    Newzie, Jul 21, 2009
    #9
  10. On Jul 21, 2:45 pm, Newzie <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person wrote:
    > > On Jul 21, 11:38 am, MotzaBall <> wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Helpful person

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>>On Jul 21, 11:06 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    > >>>> On 20 July, 17:51, Helpful person <> 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
    Helpful person, Jul 21, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kenneth Baltrinic

    How to get VS IDE to recognize .shtml docs as html

    Kenneth Baltrinic, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    394
    Kenneth Baltrinic
    Nov 20, 2003
  2. vertigo
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,910
    David Dorward
    Jun 28, 2003
  3. The Eclectic Electric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,137
    Rincewind
    Sep 11, 2005
  4. Gary

    html to shtml

    Gary, Jan 9, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    600
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Jan 9, 2007
  5. Helpful person

    Re: html shtml

    Helpful person, Jul 20, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    Helpful person
    Jul 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page