its not. not the extension, but the route and placement on server are key
Am Samstag, 11. August 2012 12:15:56 UTC+2 schrieb bo b:
NO, .js IS refer to static brower javascript .
if you choose .js as page extension it would be great problem !
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting
NO, .js IS refer to static brower javascript .
if you choose .js as page extension it would be great problem !
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to
such as index.js, login.js, reg.js etc...
在 2012年8月11日星期六UTC+8下午6时15分56秒，bo b写道：
NO, .js IS refer to static brower javascript .
if you choose .js as page extension it would be great problem !
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM, bo b seaso...@gmail.com wrote:
NO, .js IS refer to static brower javascript .
if you choose .js as page extension it would be great problem !
It seems that perhaps you're trying to replicate a rather old web
development model here. In general, people don't
.js
Am Freitag, 10. August 2012 11:10:51 UTC+2 schrieb bo b:
.j(javascript)
.sjs(serverside javascript)
.jssp (javascript server pages)
which looks better if an extension is used in node?
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
On Aug 10, 5:10 am, bo b seaso...@gmail.com wrote:
which looks better if an extension is used in node?
.js ;-)
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to
