ASP Includes

[Jeff]

When writing ASP pages that have include pages, is best to make the include
pages as txt, asp, inc??? which format would be the most efficient.

the include pages wouldn't contain any asp script, all html.
thanks
jeff

[Tim Slattery]

"Jeff" <gi*****@adelphia.net> wrote:

When writing ASP pages that have include pages, is best to make the include
pages as txt, asp, inc??? which format would be the most efficient.

You mean what extension should you use? There's certainly no
difference in efficiency. "inc" makes it clear to the maintainer (you)
that this file is intended to be included. "html" would make it clear
that the file contains HTML.

Pick whatever helps you to remember how your site works.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Sl********@bls.gov

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

Jeff wrote:

When writing ASP pages that have include pages, is best to make the
include pages as txt, asp, inc??? which format would be the most
efficient.

the include pages wouldn't contain any asp script, all html.
thanks
jeff

No efficiency gains, but unless you go into your website configuration and
change the mappings, a person will be able to download that inc or txt file
by browsing to it. Using a .asp extension will prevent it from being
downloaded

--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Jeff]

Ok. up to this point, i have been using .asp i just got to thinking today,
as someone asked me about making an include page that contained the DB
connection.

thanks for the replies.
Jeff
"Bob Barrows [MVP]" <re******@NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:um*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

Jeff wrote:

When writing ASP pages that have include pages, is best to make the
include pages as txt, asp, inc??? which format would be the most
efficient.

the include pages wouldn't contain any asp script, all html.
thanks
jeff

No efficiency gains, but unless you go into your website configuration and
change the mappings, a person will be able to download that inc or txt
file
by browsing to it. Using a .asp extension will prevent it from being
downloaded

--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Paxton]

Jeff wrote:

"Bob Barrows [MVP]" <re******@NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:um*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

Jeff wrote:

When writing ASP pages that have include pages, is best to make the
include pages as txt, asp, inc??? which format would be the most
efficient.

the include pages wouldn't contain any asp script, all html.
thanks
jeff

No efficiency gains, but unless you go into your website configuration and
change the mappings, a person will be able to download that inc or txt
file
by browsing to it. Using a .asp extension will prevent it from being
downloaded

--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

Ok. up to this point, i have been using .asp i just got to thinking today,
as someone asked me about making an include page that contained the DB
connection.

thanks for the replies.
Jeff

I ALWAYS put db connection includes in an .asp file. I might be able
to persuade the current hosting company that I use to change mappings
for inc files, but I can't be guranteed that the next hosting company
will comply if I ever have to move hosts.

/P.