RE: [WSG] Server-side includes?
Hi, this discussion has been had before - follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg22706.html :) Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lamberson Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:26 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Server-side includes? I suppose I have always very much disliked server-side includes, for no reason I can immediately think up, they just seem like bad form. But if I really think about it, it doesn't matter what goes on as long as it gets to the client in a standards-compliant, semantically correct form. A business partner of mine wants to use includes in our site, and I want to tell him no, but I also can't think of a good reason to give him. My question is: are server-side includes good, bad, or neither in the eyes of standards and semantics? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Server-side includes?
Chris Lamberson said: it doesn't matter what goes on as long as it gets to the client in a standards-compliant, semantically correct form. Correct. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Server-side includes?
Hi Paul, My question is: are server-side includes good, bad, or neither in the eyes of standards and semantics? Neither. There's no connection between the use of SSI and semantics or standards. SSI enables elements of a page to be modularised (note that there are specific SSI commands for including file modification dates, filenames. etc.). For example, the HTML for global navigation bars can be 'put' into a separate file and included into each page. FILE PROCESSING One consideration is that a page may only have one form of processing applied to it. So if a website uses PHP or ASP then server-side includes that have been implemented using directives for Apache or IIS will not work. (A PHP or ASP include directive will need to be used instead.) More on SSI: http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/ssi.php HTH, -- Andy Kirkwood Motive: net communication -- with intent http://www.motive.co.nz ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes
QM Consulting Ltd wrote: Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments again), or is it irrelevant because this will not be seen by the browser? As the code is processed server side and never sent, you can do whatever you like, as long as the end result is valid. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes
Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments again), or is it irrelevant because this will not be seen by the browser? Thanks, Richard Morton QM Consulting Ltd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes
It's not seen by the browser at all, unless SSI's are turned off or they are not being processed by the web server. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments again), or is it irrelevant because this will not be seen by the browser? Thanks, Richard Morton QM Consulting Ltd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes
SSI is irrelevant to standards, as the code is parsed by the webserver (and the include file placed in the output code) before the browser/client receives it Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:10 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments again), or is it irrelevant because this will not be seen by the browser? Thanks, Richard Morton QM Consulting Ltd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes
Paul, I don't entirely agree that the SSI is irrelevant to standards. I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. Yes, the server needs to be configured to interpret the SSI file, and it's similar to PHP in that he code is parsed by the webserver, but the markup needs to valid and well-formed. Mario SSI is irrelevant to standards, as the code is parsed by the webserver (and the include file placed in the output code) before the browser/client receives it Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:10 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments again), or is it irrelevant because this will not be seen by the browser? Thanks, Richard Morton QM Consulting Ltd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't entirely agree that the SSI is irrelevant to standards. I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. I don't think anyone is arguing that the content of the include is irrelevant, the original question was about the syntax of the include statement and its effect on validity. Since the validator or browser never get to see the include statement, it is irrelevant. Of course the content of the include file would need to be valid to pass validation and hopefully display correctly in browsers. That seems to be a given. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes
I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. This is an issue with the *code in the include* NOT with server side includes. This list is about standards-compliant code - SSI has no bearing on whether a site is or isn't standards compliant, hence the initial point still stands - SSI is irrelevant to standards compliance. Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes
I caught the comment from I think Richard. 'Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments' You might actually be a little confused. This is a comment !-- Something in here -- Note the '!'. In the code for a SSI, there is not '!'. In other words. This is not a comment. -- #include file=test.html -- And as for the other comments about standards and all. It really does not matter. As another Paul state the includes are put together on the server way before the HTML ever reaches the client (browser). And sure if you have errors in you include you will break validation but then again if you used a single file as opposed to include and an had an error you would see the same thing. Once again in other words the us of SSI does not and will not cause validation problems. P- --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, I don't entirely agree that the SSI is irrelevant to standards. I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. Yes, the server needs to be configured to interpret the SSI file, and it's similar to PHP in that he code is parsed by the webserver, but the markup needs to valid and well-formed. Mario SSI is irrelevant to standards, as the code is parsed by the webserver (and the include file placed in the output code) before the browser/client receives it Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:10 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes Richard, I use SSI's for my navigation, and I've never had any problems with validation, or structure. Kind regards, Mario Are there any standards issues around using server side includes? For example a simple include of another file e.g. -- #include file=test.html -- Does it matter that this is making use of code within comments (without wishing to start the debate about IE conditional code in comments again), or is it irrelevant because this will not be seen by the browser? Thanks, Richard Morton QM Consulting Ltd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Server Side Includes
Paul Menard wrote: You might actually be a little confused. This is a comment !-- Something in here -- Note the '!'. In the code for a SSI, there is not '!'. In other words. This is not a comment. -- #include file=test.html -- Good grief -- where did you get that idea? Your example `include` above /should/ be: !--#include file=test.html -- :: which is most certainly proper comment syntax, and has been since originally implemented in the NCSA server from which Apache evolved. See http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/howto/ssi.html for examples. FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Server Side Includes
I wasn't arguing either. I was simply pointing out that the code still needs to be valid, well-formed and semantically correct. I teach a class at the local college and you'd be amazed at the number of students taking web-based courses with mimimal computer experience therefore I wouldn't assume that anything is a given, especially with beginners to CSS and the list, hence I took the liberty of emphasizing this point, which still stands. Mario From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't entirely agree that the SSI is irrelevant to standards. I use XHTML Strict, and if my markup in the SSI file contains a deprecated property then it won't validate. I don't think anyone is arguing that the content of the include is irrelevant, the original question was about the syntax of the include statement and its effect on validity. Since the validator or browser never get to see the include statement, it is irrelevant. Of course the content of the include file would need to be valid to pass validation and hopefully display correctly in browsers. That seems to be a given. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
