Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a site built with static html files and I need to add a segment of markup to every page. The natural choice to accomplish this is to use server-side includes (SSI).

The SSI handler does not map to .html files by default, so I'm left with 2 choices:

  1. Rename all files to .shtml, which requires replacing all links.
  2. Map the SSI handler to .html files. (I'd like to make this change quick and dirty, so this is my preferred option.)

Is there any major issue with mapping the SSI handler to .html files? This is not a high-traffic site by any means, so performance should not be a concern.

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

There aren't any concern to your option 2 for a non high-traffic site. The HTML will still render as normal HTML, but it will also process the SSI.

As a side, is there a reason why you would use SSI instead of a full scripting solution like ASP.NET, PHP or even Classic ASP? SSI lived a great life, about a decade ago.

share|improve this answer
It's inherited code on a site that's pretty much all content with a form or two in ColdFuson. We just need to add a chat tag to every page and do it as quick and dirty as possible without changing file extensions, etc. – Josh Kodroff Mar 17 '11 at 15:15
Got ya. SSI is valid for include files. It does that well. – Scott Forsyth - MVP Mar 17 '11 at 19:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.