Mark Hensler — Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:24:13 +0000

ya....
I think it's more for you... to get a mental picture when looking at the directory....
But it also depends on how your web server is setup. By default, web servers don't parse .html files, but an admin could modify that (to look for SSI for example).

Re: That may be it.

Suzanne — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:07:16 +0000

Quote: BTW, is there an advantage or disadvantage to putting includes in a txt file rather than an html file as Suzzane notes (assuming that there is html code within, but no SSI stringing)?

The only advantage is if you have it set for HTML to be parsed (it's possible in some situations) and you have the pieces that definitely AREN'T parsed as .txt, you avoid the server unnecessarily parsing the file.

I'm sure it's infinitessimal, if there is a clear advantage from the server perspective. From my perspective, I have the main pages (holders) as .html, the scripted bits as .shtml, and the content and anything else as .txt, which helps me keep the pieces straight in my head when I am editing.

Suzanne

P.S. Glad it works!

fifeclub — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:39:50 +0000

It worked! Thanks!

[Edited by fifeclub on Feb. 20, 2001 at 08:52 PM]

That may be it.

fifeclub — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:23:56 +0000

That may be it. My footer file was not shtml. I'll give that a shot tonight (I'm at my day job now). If it works it will make future site changes a breeze. Thanks.

BTW, is there an advantage or disadvantage to putting includes in a txt file rather than an html file as Suzzane notes (assuming that there is html code within, but no SSI stringing)? If there are no disadvantages, I'll just leave them as html files (even though I don't even have the or codes within them).

[Edited by fifeclub on Feb. 20, 2001 at 08:37 PM]

Mark Hensler — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:28:16 +0000

suggestion

Suzanne — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:26:10 +0000

main page: .shtml?
include with the include: .shtml
tiny snip: .txt

To ease the load on the server, only have the pages that need to be parsed have the .shtml extension. My server allows me to include files in an .html page, but the includes have to be .shtml if they contain more includes or any logic.

... er, what Mark asked is what I'm getting at.

Suzanne

Mark Hensler — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:12:34 +0000

what is the extension of your footer file?

didn't work?

fifeclub — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:48:50 +0000

I tried it on a test basis and I couln't get it to work. What I did is insert the following code into my footer file (which is called by an SSI).

The file secondssi.html has just a simple line of text for testing purposes. When I loaded my page, it successfully called the rest of the footer file but the secondssi.html (text) was not inserted (but it didn't print an error message either). Any ideas what may have gone wrong?

P.S. For background, I want to figure this part out before I proceed with my site redesign because I ideally want to put my banner SSI within my footer SSI, so that if I decide to change my banner script or delete it all together, I won't have to make the changes to every page on my website.

Mark Hensler — Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:06:58 +0000

Welcome to TWF, fifeclub

Yes, you can string SSI pages...
No, I've not experienced any slowing doing this.