> Svip

> Actually, the best way would be to use PHP,

If it's only a case of including a piece of static content inside another page, 
there's really no advantage in using PHP over simple server-side includes.

> and besides, we do not
> tend to call them "HTM" pages, but rather "HTML" pages.

Possibly just a question of preference?

> Which would not include your "comment" mark, and I do not know either
> if your way is a standard, as I have never heard of it. Besides, I
> hate frames, and thus would not suggest your way.

As Lachlan already mentioned, it's nothing to do with frames, but it's an 
Apache specific functionality.
More generally, it's not really important from a web standards point of view 
what happens server-side...only the final output which is sent to the user 
agent. i.e. you can use Perl scripts, SSIs, PHP, whatever...as long as the 
final HTML document that the browser displays adheres to markup/css standards.

> Note: When using PHP, you probably need to name your original file
> with ".php" at the end.

Depends on how the server is set up. You can even configure it to process .htm 
and .html files. On the same note, the default file extension for SSIs is 
.shtml, which again can be changed in the server's configuration.

P
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
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
******************************************************

Reply via email to