Do you really find it noticeable quicker? Benchmarks I've seen (none of
them that current) don't seem to support that. Depending on the software
versions involved, it seems to be anywhere from much faster through PHP to
a few % slower. Certainly no major penalty in any case.
If there's interest I'd be willing to do some benchmarks on a few
different setups to see where things stand with current software.
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Peter wrote:
> I find it better than having every page go thru php not to mention quicker.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miguel Cruz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 17 May 2002 3:52 PM
> To: Peter
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PHP] PHP in HTML
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Peter wrote:
> >> there are also possible good reasons for sending .html files through
> >> php. like if you don't want users to know that your website is written
> >> in php.
> > a better way to do that would be to make up your own extension so
> > instead of having your server use .php for php files make it use .web or
> > what ever you like ...
> Why is that better?
> There are certain little weirdnesses that crop up when HTML pages have
> file names that fool lesser platforms into thinking they're not HTML,
> especially when they try to save them locally.
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php