From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:28 PM
> I still haven't actually tried this stuff on a real server, so take this > with a grain of salt. But anyway, here are some comments/questions based > on a slightly more careful look: > > 1. Any objection to combining header.html with top.html and footer.html > with bottom.html? As long as we are saving filesystem mucking, this seems > like any easy score, and it makes the whole setup more clear from my > perspective. (Once the includes get a few levels deap, I start to get > dizzy.) > > The same goes for including contact.html and spacer.html directly > in header and footer where appropriate. No objection here. Note that spacer actually appears within the messages. Wonder if the header could simple set up a 'spacer' variable, so we don't actually do an include. For that matter, wonder if the header could simply set up the footer text for substitution, without reading another file. But your simple start sounds good. > 2. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this: > <TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=6 WIDTH="100%"> > <TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR="#000000"> > <FONT SIZE="+2" COLOR="#FFFFFF"><strong><!--#echo encoding="none" > var="TITLE" --></strong></FONT> > </TD></TR></TABLE> > > I know this technique (white text on a black table cell) is common > and it looks nice. But I'm afraid that there are browsers out there that > can interpret the <font color=... tag, but can't interpret the <td > bgcolor=... tag. The result would be white on white. > > My preference is just a plain old <h1>...</h1>. (We could even include a > stylesheet if we want to be fancy.) That's what I would prefer, throughout the pages. If we want to be 'cool', let's use style sheets exclusively. Depreicate all <tag bogus=fooness>, and create a style sheet in htdocs.html. Have them name=ap-identifier so we can create a real style base. And then (if we disagree on the actual style :) offer more than one 'choice'. See the w3.org site for a good collection, and just choose one that we can start with. Unless it's a manditory style change (such as some autoindex stuff that must be parsable by html 3.0 generation clients) let's leave asthetics to stylesheet based browsers. Text/reader based browsers don't need all this cruft, anyways. > 3. The contact.html includes should probably be wrapped with an if-test > for INCLUDE_SERVER_ADMIN. I'm sure there are people who prefer not to put > an email address on all these error pages. That's the definition of the ServerAdmin directive. If they don't want it, we drop the admin's name. You can test that the variable is defined. > 4. I'm not sure that I see the point of the cache-control and pragma > HTTP-Equiv stuff. Shouldn't we be letting the cache decide for itself > whether to cache based on the status code/etc. Are the caches out there > so bad that they can't be trusted with this decision? We should be letting the server config decide (specifically, the error handler better deal with these within Apache, it's arguable [moot] in the .html content. > 5. Some of the pages include <!--#echo encoding="none" > var="REDIRECT_METHOD"-->. Is that safe? Shouldn't those be > encoded in some way to prevent the client from shoving nasty methods at > us, or is this variable safe? Need to contemplate that. Probably not, but I think -our-modules- mostly determine the redirect method. That needs testing. > If I don't get answers or objections to these points, I will make the > changes myself. Attack :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
