Re: .shtml?

by Kathy Wheeler <kathyw(at)home.albury.net.au>

 Date:  Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:41:37 +1100
 To:  "Mike Taylor" <lonewolf(at)one.net>,
<hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
 References:  amd oemcomputer
  todo: View Thread, Original
> You can have all your
> webpages use .shoe as an extension and it wouldn't matter, so long as your
> server setup allows you to make .shoe a valid extension.   It's the server
> that tells the browser what PHP, ASP, CFM, SHTML, HTM, HTML, JSP, ASPX,
> etc. extensions are and what you can do with them.

Which raises an interesting point. Theoretically I guess it would not be 
difficult to add the ".asp" extension to, say, your apache PHP configuration 
and call your PHP pages "somename.asp" and have PHP serve them as usual - 
except it would "appear" to visitors that you were using ".asp" technology ...

Don't know WHY anyone would want to do that, except to 
confuse-the-hell-out-of stickybeaks, but it's an amusing side thought ...

KathyW.

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA