[sf-lug] need for .html suffix

[jim]

    Sorry, I don't follow your description. It seems that 
* In somedir/ on your local computer there's index.html and 
  otherfile. 
* In the index.html file there's an href to otherfile. 
* If you use your browser to open index.html and then click 
  the link to otherfile, otherfile opens as you expect. 
  -- Seems to me that otherfile is a valid html file, yes? 
  assuming so, 
* It seems you want to upload the index.html file and 
  otherfile to a web server system, yes? 
  -- This seems problematic: for any directory, web servers 
  default to a file with a name that begins with index. 
  and, depending on the web server design, with subsequent 
  characters such as html or php or some other. (as a matter 
  of formality, a Linux filename has no sub-structures such 
  as .exe or .bat or other as far as the filesystem goes.)  
     So your uploading should not overwrite any existing 
  file with the name index.html and there's the possibility 
  of contention if the directory has a file such as index.php 
  as well as your (newly uploaded) file named index.html. 
     I think. 
     Also there's the matter of permissions: does your 
  index.html file have executable permissions? 
  -- Also (assuming I've described things correctly), what 
  does this have to do with otherfile or otherfile with this? 

    Let me know where I've fallen off your truck--correct my 
description, please. 



On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 20:15 -0700, Alex Kleider wrote:
> I've just come across some puzzling behavior as follows.
> index.html (parent page) contains an href to a file in the same
> directory.
> Whether the referenced file is called index.khan or k1.html makes no
> difference if I test locally (i.e. point browser @
> file:///home/alex/BookSite/index.html and then click on the link) but
> once uploaded to the server, if that file doesn't have the suffix
> '.html', the browser/server relationship breaks down and I get a
> notice that my link is to a bin file and I am given the option to save
> it but it won't display.
> Should I have expected this?
> I'm using lighttpd as the server running Debian/Lenny on a DreamPlug
> (arm processor) and firefox under Ubuntu 12.04 as browser on my
> laptop. I'm curious to know who (I assume it must be the server)
> decides the file type, and if it is the server, perhaps this is a
> configuration issue.  I'm using lighttpd simply because it comes by
> default on the DreamPlug. I've never run into anything like this
> before although I can't specifically remember if I've ever tried using
> an html file that wasn't named with the '.html' suffix.
> alex
> 
> a_kleider at yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/