- From: John Whelan <whelan@itp.unibe.ch>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: 75819671@it.ibm.com
> John T. Whelan said: >> authors have a lot more control over the servers they run on than >> they do on any conceivable browser that could be used to access the >> page (which is also why CGI is better than client-side scripting in >> cases where either will work). Dario de Judicibus replied: > My understanding is that most developed pages are loaded on servers > provided by companies and organizations which does not allow their > customers to create their own scripts or programs to manage server > sides. If your ISP provides you with server-side features, you may > use it, but if he/she does not, it is hard to ask for specific > services. Well, you could always find a better ISP. This seems like a simpler solution than re-writing HTML and then producing pages which are guaranteed to fail for X% of your readership. > The XML architecture provides users with complete control > from client side, avoiding dependencies on server providers. And instead producing potentially crippling dependencies on browser features. If you are using an ISP without SSI support and all you want to do is include the same bit of text on every page, another option is to run an offline script which build the pages once and then install the static pages. (In fact, this has been touted on this list as superior to SSI by virtue of not consuming the server resources every time the page is requested.) John T. Whelan whelan@iname.com http://www.slack.net/~whelan/
Received on Thursday, 30 September 1999 10:08:41 UTC