Many thanks for the prompt and proper help.
Uwe Kaiser
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt
> >
> You can do that if you wish. As above, just use type: text/css"); ?> at the top of your document then add your CSS as
> normal. Anytime you want to add some scripting just insert the PHP
> tags and you're all set.
More on that:
http://www.icant.co.uk/articles/cssconstants/#sscript
--
Chri
> -Original Message-
> From: Uwe Kaiser
>
> why the style sheet files always have the extension ".css"?
>
You have to setup a mime-type for the file on the web server,
so you want to pick one extension and stick to it. the .css is
very self explanatory and follows the convention of .html
On 24 May 2005, at 23:37, Uwe Kaiser wrote:
Christian Heilmann schrieb:
On 5/24/05, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uwe Kaiser wrote:
Do we really need the extension ".css"? And if yes, why?
There may be a better reason behind this, but... the extention
triggers
the we
If the extension wouldn't be important (because the web server
is sending the correct mime type), I could link to an "basis.php"
to manipulate the styles server sided via scripting.
You can do it now, just send the mime...
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
Christian Heilmann schrieb:
On 5/24/05, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uwe Kaiser wrote:
Do we really need the extension ".css"? And if yes, why?
There may be a better reason behind this, but... the extention triggers
the webserver to serve the page in the proper format.
You
it's a DOS hang-over. File extensions are not *needed*, the main OS
developers *choose* to use them. It makes file types more 'human
readable'. I personally think it should be metadata. But thats all
offtopic.
As for why use them TODAY? It all depends on your browser support. If
all the browsers y
On 5/24/05, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uwe Kaiser wrote:
>
> > Do we really need the extension ".css"? And if yes, why?
>
> There may be a better reason behind this, but... the extention triggers
> the webserver to serve the page in the proper format.
>
> You can cal4l it anyth
A couple reasons...
1. Mime types
If your css files end in .foo instead of .css, the web server won't send the
appropriate "text/css" type unless it has been explicitly configured to do
so. Even though you might be saying , user agents
are supposed to respect the content-type header sent with the
Uwe Kaiser wrote:
Do we really need the extension ".css"? And if yes, why?
There may be a better reason behind this, but... the extention triggers
the webserver to serve the page in the proper format.
You can cal4l it anything you want, so long as you force the "header:
content-type" of "t
10 matches
Mail list logo
