+1 good idea. but would be ".es" a better extension? ".jsp" <--> ".esp" ".js" <--> ".es"
regards, toby On 2/21/08, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently the extension ".js" is used as an extension for JavaScript > files, regardless of whether they are intended to be executed on the > server or client side. This might cause confusion for developers and > might present problems when accessing such scripts to get them for > client-side execution. > > I propose to acknowledge the ".js" extension to be used only for > client-side scripts and to use ".ecma" for server side JavaScript files. > > WDYT ? > > Regards > > Felix > > -- -----------------------------------------< [EMAIL PROTECTED] >--- Tobias Bocanegra, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97 -----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---
