- From: Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.phone.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:22:01 PST
- To: www-html@w3.org
> Umm, could someone explain the advantage of a CSI over a SSI? CSI takes advantage of caches. SSI pretty much defeats them, though some implementations manage to do a bit better, and datestamp the document with the date of the latest part used to build it. CSI also lets you build documents from pieces on different servers - allowing you to imbed a search result from the HTTP interface to an SQL server in a document that comes from a off-the-shelf HTTP server. > I cannot think of a single application for a client-side include. There aren't very many *usefull* things to do with SSI. Eliminate things that are better done with a server-side build model and there's very little left. See <URL: http://www.phone.net/home/mwm/no-ssi.html > for more information. > Don't most servers do SSIs these days? And by the time browsers > all support CSIs (if that would ever happen), wouldn't all servers > be doing SSIs? And if so, why not just use SSIs? No, all servers do not support SSI. Those that don't usually don't for a reason, so expecting them to grow SSI is a bit naive. Further, SSI isn't portable across servers, even if both servers use the same basic model, which isn't always true. <mike
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 1998 18:29:03 UTC