- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:31:26 -0700
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
David Woolley: "The problem with it [dynamic pages] is that forces an end to end load of the page, rather than allowing the page to be accessed from a nearby caching proxy." Yes, that's true and one reason why I rejected the Fusebox method as it's currently applied. The trick is to avoid the ?. On my sites I substituted static pages which called the dynamic scripts, so no ? is needed except when the page is truly dynamic. With the right HTTP headers, the page can be cached. Another method that works is to have filtering on the server so you can call .com/coins/ Instead of .com/?action=coins Again, with the right headers, pages can be cached. Of course, you still have the overhead of server processing, but with proper optimization, the cost is minimal. Another problem with the ? is that many search engines do not index those pages, presuming that they are scripts... Charles F. Munat Seattle, Washington
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 03:30:27 UTC