On Dec 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Mike Purvis wrote: > Justus Pendleton wrote: > >> Or you could use frames which aren't server specific and work on >> almost >> every browser. Moving the sidebar to a separate frame would probably >> make it easier to implement separate cache policies for the >> sidebar vs. >> the main content area. >> > I'm much more comfortable with the idea of a server-include, > myself. If > we don't want to run Rails for simple includes, couldn't typo just > even > be changed to generate ".php" files instead of ".html"? Then they > could > simply include code like '<? include "/cache/sidebar.html"; ?>' in > them. > > I hate to be a downer, but I frequently browse with JS-off, and I know > at least two people who access my site from BlackBerrys. Making key > navigational/content entities depend on a javascript call is not > exactly > "progressive enhancement".
Typo isn't going to depend on PHP. Frankly, I think the right fix for this whole mess is to make the non-cached case faster (which is a work in progress, but skaes has made a lot of suggestions) and then not worry about caching too much--we really *should* be fast enough for 98% of all users *without* the cache. I have a pretty clear idea of how to fix the sidebar lifespan problem; it's not really all that hard, and the solutions solves several other problems at the same time, like post-dated articles. Scott _______________________________________________ Typo-list mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
