Hi Guys, can someone explain me, the advantage using .html or .php
Look i know exactly what each extension mean, what im trying to get is in term of website performance.
I know that we use it every time but i thing no one ever think about it.
Please some advice.
With a basic setup HTML is static so can be output to the browser as-is, while PHP will be parsed first. In theory HTML only files should be faster, but there are many techniques such as caching which have to be taken into account. So what are you getting at?
I Priteas.
Thanks for your repply.
The point is im in one Team project, and one of our member he suggested to files be renamed with .html, so in mind i come confuse, why he suggested files with this extension.
Is nothing wrong till now, so i want to get his point, why html, what difference make if i leave like how's .php and inside i <!DOCTYPE html> and only i use php code where is needed.
That's why im here asking for you guys.
why he suggested files with this extension
Did you ask for an explanation as to why he wants this?
Once upon a time there was a belief (with no real facts supporting it) that search engines treat .html better than .php in URL's (so you could generate a .html through PHP) . Now days friendly URL's have dominated , and there is no more many .php , .html , .do , .jsp out there. The SEO benefit doesn't come from the fact that there isn't an extension (you could have the same benefit with an extension as well) but from the fact of how those URL's are produced and how relevant are to the content.
The point is im in one Team project, and one of our member he suggested to files be renamed with .html, so in mind i come confuse, why he suggested files with this extension.
the delay added to every html file by the directive 'addhandler server-parsed' to get php files to function when renamed,
far exceeds the non-existent SEO benefit,
ditto jkon above: there was a perceived benefit to serving html, multiple generations/iterations of SEbot ago, back in the 00s
almostbob we can't prove anything because we are talking about more than a decade ago. But also then , I had made tests suggesting that there were no difference among .html and .php (the major search engine didn't treaded .html as stable and .php as variable content despite the “without facts” general belief).
The main difference comes out of friendly URL's relevant to the content.
Definitively now days if anyone suggest to use “.html” in URL's I would look him / her a bit awkward but because I am open to new ideas I would ask for more supporting explanation to that opinion.
I agree with you, jkon, a perceived benefit, not a real benefit,
I have logs back to 99, transferred server logs from one pc to another as the pc got replaced,
working backwards its not hard to trace bot algorithm changes by page hits (1)
there was more rapid indexing of static pages, until Sep 2002,
since 2005 indexing speed, and depth, have equalled regardless of pagetype
extra processing needed to display static html pages from php asp jsp is not needed
make generated uri display in friendly form, definitely worth it
note(1) 20/20 hindsight, would be great to have 20/20 foresight
Thanks guys, for your help and amazing ideas.
So in my opinion, i'll use .php, i think is better.
And i know that SEO there not looking for extension, but there looking for friendly Url's.
Thanks we can mark it at salved.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.