Hi, recently I noticed that most of the Sun site pages have the extension .jspa, some even have .xml. So just curious about it because I don't know about jspa but as far as I know of xml, it is not rendered by browser like the way we see on Sun site.
Hi, thanks for the reply, and yes I know of .do and I can understand of .amit also, but what about .xml. XML is a standard, and browsers parse xml documents and display them as hierarchy of object value pairs. Isn't it.
I am not an expert on such things, but i think at least with xml, the document itself contains a tag that says "HEY!!! I'M XML!!!". the parser uses the content of the file, not the name, to determine the XMLness of the file. the first tag often looks like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Hi fred, I am well aware of the fact that you are amongst the most talented people out there, so with due respect to your post,I would like to say that I know of XML behavior in a browser, it simply looks like
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?> - <note> <to>someone</to> <from>me</from> <heading>hello</heading> <body>this is a hello message</body> </note>
when you click on the " - ", the note tag winds up and a + is displayed, clicking it collapses the tag and again the tree is displayed. Please correct me if I am wrong
I am well aware of the fact that you are amongst the most talented people out there
That actually made me laugh out loud - but thanks for believing in me...
Perhaps i mis-understood your question (it's still pretty early here). I thought you were asking why an XML file might have a .jspa extension, and how the browser would know what to do with it. I was answering that question, not "why is the browser displaying what is XML in a non-xml kind of way".
Keep in mind that just because a URL ends with "xml", that doesn't mean it's an XML file that will be sent to the browser. In this particular case it's obviously mapped to a server-side component that transforms it into HTML.
Hi fred, Ulf thank you for the replies, its great to see that special people like you bartenders/ sheriff's show willingness to answer even the most smallest of the questions That is my most favorite part of the ranch
now Ulf's post cleared my confusion, although I had previously thought on similar grounds, but then I thought why would some do it that way, hence the confusion. Then came in the .jspa extension to add more confusion. Then i felt like asp evolved into aspx, JSP's might have evolved into JSPA And i was totally unaware of the new technology
now I guess its not like that
Although I am unable to get rid of some small percent of confusion remaining Thanks for the help [ April 17, 2008: Message edited by: Amit Ghorpade ]
This is a very old post and I would like to add more details on this topic. Just because the URL ends with .xml, it does not mean that the response is going to be an XML. The browsers knows the type of response object based on the response header - Content-Type. Based on the content type, the browsers knows how to display the data. In the way an URL that ends with .xml can render an image by using a Content-Type response header.
I’ve looked at a lot of different solutions, and in my humble opinion Aspose is the way to go. Here’s the link: http://aspose.com