HTML preprocessor - Page 5

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: HTML preprocessor

aa wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The question is not "Does caching work for the other documents" but
rather "Does caching still work for the merged HTML, if I use a
particular technique to merge it ?"

For SSI, caching is fine.
For client-side assembly, caching is not possible.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The footer will already have been merged into the resulting HTML
document. Its content is cached (as part of the main document), the
file itself is not needed, not visible, and so the fact it's not cached
doesn't matter.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The notion that "I can do something badly because I don't do much of
it" isn't conducive to developing good skills.

I do this. We all do this. But I don't _like_ doing this, but sometimes
I work on a big site and I can't do it any more. Then it's useful to
know beforehand how to do things right.

Learning to do things right is often hard and lengthy. Once you've
learned though, it's usually quicker and easier to do them right
anyway, and everywhere.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is a complete red herring. Your argument is "inclusion is good,
therefore client-side inclusion is also good".
Our argument is instead "server side inclusion is better than client
side inclusion". There is no contradiction here because there is no

However no-one is advocating an absence of inclusion (the only case
worse than your advice). Server-side inclusion is easily available in
most cases and can still be obtained in the others, by less direct

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, not anyone. Just someone, like yourself, who begins as merely
ignorant but then just becomes entrenched in their ignorance rather
than bothering to learn something. It's your choice. No-one else cares.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are two fallacies in yoru argument here.

Firstly there are indeed "different websites". There are even two
"groups of websites", where one group cares about search engine
performance and one doesn't. However the first group is far, far bigger
than the second (kids' homepages and photos to share with the family).
Pretty much all of us here, whatever sort of page we write, care very
much about search engines.

Your fallacy though is to equate this categorisation with a
categorisation by purpose or implementation technology. It doesn't
matter if you're large or small, graphical or text, chances are that
you're in that huge group of search-engine-hungry sites. You simply
cannot say "My page is small and is made of badly-sized unreadable
text, therefore I don't care about search engines".

Re: HTML preprocessor

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I prefer not to use Javascript because of two reasons:

1) My knowledge of Javascript is quasi zero

2) I don't want to force my users to have Javascript enabled in
their browser.

Best wishes,

    "Share what you know.  Learn what you don't."

Site Timeline