Yup, the wildcards will take

pr0gr4mm3r — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:20:19 +0000

Yup, the wildcards will take any .html file.

Yes, although get the the

greg — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:55:25 +0000

Yes, although get the the feeling that yours also does all PHP files.

And your method you have to

pr0gr4mm3r — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:20:54 +0000

And your method you have to add a line for every page you want to parse.

Are you talking about the .htaccess code?

for clarification, I would

decibel.places — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:55 +0000

for clarification, I would like to note that the code

RewriteEngine on


RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^(.*)\.html$ $1\.php [L]

belongs in the .htaccess file

That is true, and there is

greg — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:00 +0000

That is true, and there is also a way to make all HTML files parse PHP:
AddType application/x-httpd-php .php .htm .html
(this will vary slightly depending on server software)

Although there are downsides to both methods:
Mine makes ALL files are parsed even if they are simple plain old html, which adds server load for no reason in HTML only files.

And your method you have to add a line for every page you want to parse.

In summary, there are ways around it, but it's better practice to use .php for php files and then .html for html only.

I always use a header and footer file included in pretty much all my sites, as well as always using some other PHP even if just for simple little functionality. so I always use .php anyway.

Also, if you link to a

pr0gr4mm3r — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:41:56 +0000

Also, if you link to a page(s) with .html, then change it (them) later to .php you have to change all links to that page(s) throughout your site.

A little rewrite magic could fix that:

RewriteEngine on

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^(.*)\.html$ $1\.php [L]

If you might add PHP code in

greg — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:27:48 +0000

If you might add PHP code in the files in the future, as has already been mentioned, then I think it's a very good idea.
As usually, when you add PHP to one file, you add it to many as the PHP usually requires various files to function and also offers functionality to multiple files or site wide.

Also, if you link to a page(s) with .html, then change it (them) later to .php you have to change all links to that page(s) throughout your site.

As previously stated, having

Shaggy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:24 +0000

As previously stated, having a plain HTML file parsed for possible PHP content will introduce a bit of 'unnecessary' load.

If you are worried about that difference, why not do a benchmark between the two to see if the overhead is significant enough for you to continue to worry?

Cheers,
Shaggy.

Saving static files as PHP

pr0gr4mm3r — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:20:08 +0000

Saving static files as PHP puts an extra load on the server, because it still loads the PHP engine to parse it.

However, as Kurtis said, I would agree that if there is a change of including PHP in the future, it may be best to do it that way.

Not necessarily. The file

kazimmerman — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:18:05 +0000

Not necessarily. The file will function just the same with a PHP extension as it would with a regular HTML extension. One thing I like about automatically creating all files with PHP extensions is that if later you want to add something in PHP to the file, you don't have to save the file again with the new extension or worry about changing any Apache settings.