Hassan Schroeder wrote: > Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> What about this then?: >> http://www.tjkdesign.com/test/default.shtml >> IMHO, it sows that using the echo directive in an nclude will always >> return the same path, no matter which document is served.
> Exactly opposite of what my tests show -- but apparently you're > running this on IIS, and I'm testing it on Apache 2.2.3. I run WAMP, and when I test a php version of my test page, I get the exact same result as in IIS. The echo directive returns the path to the include, *not* to the file that hosts the include. > Logically, I'd consider Apache "correct" as the snippet doesn't > constitute the DOCUMENT_URI *as evaluated from the perspective* of > the server handling the *initial* (user) request. But my Apache server says otherwise... Actually, it makes sense to me as I've always heard that Includes are processed *independantly* of the document host. >>> Personally I think "shtml" is ugly, and there's no reason for it; >>> make all your .html files server-parsed. For most real-world apps >>> and circumstances the overhead is negligible. >> But not everybody can change server settings, isn't ;-) > I suppose. I try to minimize the amount of work I do where I don't > have root access. It's just too painful. :-) But then why offering this type of solution with no warning? Because bottom line, a solution is only good if it can be implemented... ;-) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
