Thierry Koblentz wrote: > The original idea was to use an Include to keep the markup in *one place*, > right? > But if we use the echo directive in that include, it returns the include > itself, *not* the document that *hosts* the include, right?
wrong. :-) The DOCUMENT_URI reflects the requested page, not the included page/ snippet. So it's still an easy way to accomplish this. > I guess this is one more reason to never use "htm" or "html", but > at least "shtml". No? No. :-) Personally I think "shtml" is ugly, and there's no reason for it; make all your .html files server-parsed. For most real-world apps and circumstances the overhead is negligible. FWIW! -- Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
