Re: Re: What's in a Name?

I do agree with you as long as we're talking about user-called scripts. However, webservers tend to insist on extensions.

As far as why I'm using extensions for non-web scripts, I do admit that this is mainly a habit - I'm still mostly working on windoze.

--cs

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. - George Carlin

Comment on Re: Re: What's in a Name?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: What's in a Name? by Abigail-II (Bishop) on May 29, 2002 at 11:48 UTC
However, webservers tend to insist on extensions. That's just a matter of configuration. Abigail	[reply]
Re: Re: What's in a Name? by maverick (Curate) on May 29, 2002 at 14:55 UTC
<topic offness="slight"> How would you configure Apache to be extension-less given that you need things like: `AddType application/x-httpd-php3 .php3 # For PHP AddType application/x-tar .tgz # For 'shorthand' tar.gz AddType text/html .shtml # For server-parsed` [download] to have it send the proper 'content-type' to the broswer? </topic> As an aside, I completely agree that end user apps should be extensionless. I don't think extensions are a bad thing for webservers. How often do you enter http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=3628 in the location bar of your browser? Odds are you type http://www.perlmonks.org and click 'Newest Nodes' or just have a bookmark... /\/\averick OmG! They killed tilly! You bleep!!	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Re: What's in a Name? by fireartist (Chaplain) on May 29, 2002 at 16:05 UTC
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=3628 ? I find it much quicker typing perlmonks.org/?node_id=3628 ;-)	[reply]
Re^3: What's in a Name? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on May 29, 2002 at 15:21 UTC
Even if they do, .pl has no reason to be. Call them .cgi if necessary. It may sound silly, but there's no reason to be telling anyone what language your scripts are written in. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]


Welcome to the Monastery
	PerlMonks