The reason that might be important is because we don't want to be crossing mime-type's with extensions. If we assign a text/xml mime-type to /xml/article/index.html it probably won't break anything, but its just ugly since we're already giving a mime-type of text/html to .html files. In other words, we shouldn't be setting mime-types on the fly. That and its not an HTML file, but an XML file. Its just one more hack that we don't need to deal with IMO. .djc. jeff wrote: > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > : if so, you should give it an .xml extension > : just to be consistant. > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > giving it a .xml extension would be easy, but that'd mean hardcoding the > link. i'm not sure i really want to do that for maintenance issues. i'll > play around with it and see if i can come up with a solution i think is > workable.