- From: Stephanos Piperoglou <spip@hol.gr>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:53:22 +0200 (EET)
- To: "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- cc: BruceLeban@akimbo.com, www-html@w3.org
On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, nemo/Joel N. Weber II wrote: > Why not? The structure of a web site is arbitrarily divided up into > multiple files. Each page and each picture must be in a separate file. > Server-side image maps have to be in separate files. CGI scripts have to > be in separate files. Is this the best way to edit a site? > > I think I now see your point. > > OTOH, I don't see a problem with spliting it across several files. I > usually split computer programs I write across several files; why shouldn't > I split web pages similarily? So do I, BUT What if I want to create a large site, where every page has a certain header and a certain footer, and some pages are dynamically created while others are not, and some are mixed, and all fit into a tree-like structure. I do NOT want to have that header and footer on every page. I do NOT want the "next, prev, up, home, index, toc, glossary, help" etc. links static in files so I have to update them every time I change a single document. I do NOT want to resort to special mechanisms for my dynamically generated content. A Web page, to me, is a complete HTML document that is served out by a Web server. The way that it is created (running an external program, pasting together header, section, footer and dynamically created navigation links and so on) is irrelevant. But in 99% of the cases it is not practical to have this HTML document in a single file on the server's disk. And in 99% of the cases it isn't. You see, most files on a web server that include server-side includes or server-side script languages like PHP/FI or LiveScript are NOT valid HTML. That confuses people. They do consider these standard HTML, they create pages that don't use proper hyperlinks, because they're not educated in a situation like this where hyperlinks have to be properly designed. A CGI binary is not an HTML document. It *produces* an HTML document, actually several HTML documents, depending on circumstances. As a matter of fact, it doesn't, now that I think of it. It produces something that is a combination of HTTP headers *and* an HTML document. So you see my point. HTML is not a good storage format because most information on the Web is stored in ways that HTML can not cater to. -- Stephanos "Pippis" Piperoglou - http://users.hol.gr/~spip/index.html I've never finished anything I began, but this time I'm
Received on Sunday, 23 March 1997 14:54:59 UTC