On Dec 17, 2005, at 11:21 PM, Milton van der Veen wrote: > Thanks, Nick. Isn't it always the way when you finally ask a > question that's been bugging you? I just noticed something about > the pages ... I wonder if it's the extensions that are giving me > the problems. > > I redid the page as "dot html" instead of "dot shtml" and it seems > to work better. I've had them as "dot shtml" since I set it up a > couple of years ago and I haven't had many complaints till the past > month or so. (Maybe more people are using Firefox now.) > > There is really no reason to use the "dot shtml" extension is > there? I had always thought that the "s" in front of the file > extensions in a secure site was needed. Am I wrong? > > ... and I noticed that you used the "dot html" extension when you > uploaded the file too. Yeah, but your server should still serve it fine. I just renamed my file back to .shtml and it works fine there too. Glad you got it working ok. -- Nick Scalise nickscalise at cox.net