Subject: .html vs .rxml, .spml, .spider
Posted on: 5 February 1999 by Mark Metson
To save clients and customers from foolishly using RXML within
pages named .html only to discover later to their dismay that
they cannot easily distinguish pages suitable for moving to
non-Roxen platforms from pages which have become dependent upon
Roxen, my policy is always to disable parsing of RXML in files
other than .rxml, .spml, and .spider (the latter harking back
to the Spinner era ;-)
This causes me problems with modules which HARD-CODE the use of
.html for documents which depend upon, or at least allow or like
to use, RXML.
Inasmuch as .rxml is the most recent extension denoting a file
which contains RoXen Markup Language - Roxen's extensions to HTML
- server-side markup - I am suggesting the use of .rxml in place
of .html in such modules, OR, a means in the configuration interface
to designate the extention the module will utilise.
I am think at this specific moment of the Photo Album module.
I like to use my HEAD and END macros in page layout and was unable
to do so without either turning on parsing of RXML in .html files
(a no-no, it could lead clients into temptation to their later
regret when they try to figure out which pages are Roxen-dependent)
or (what I had to do) editing the album.pike source to utilise
.rxml instead of .html for the virtual files it implements.
Does anyone have a problem with the use of .rxml extension?
Is it most people's policy to deliberately lure customers into
making .html pages be nonstandard, unable to be moved to vanilla
platforms? Seems like a form of entrapment almost... ?
[ New Post ] [ Post Reply ] [ Previous Post ] [ Next Post ] [ Previous in Thread ] [ Next in Thread ] [ Forum Index ]