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