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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
] [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
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
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
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
