RE: client side includes (fwd)

Russell,

Thanks for a great substantiated reply.  I guess that this would be true if the included content does not change or have any conditional requirements.  How would an HTML client-side syntax allow for a single included item not to be cached?  I guess the included file would require a pragma no cache tag.  Is this practical and allowed within all code snippets?  Even if, I guess designers would have to rename their include files every time they changed to avoid cached versions from persisting.  I guess this would be impossible is situations where a designer was responsible for (able to edit) only the included file but not page that included it.  A dump client side cached versions prior to xxx syntax would needed to make this practical.

Compatibility with existing UAs is still the best reason for SSIs.  Please don't forget the installed UA base.  My mom (and possibly yours) does not know how to upgrade her browser!  Dont forget the users.

--Murray



-----Original Message-----
From: Russell O'Connor [mailto:roconnor@math.berkeley.edu]
Sent: February 3, 2001 2:29 PM
To: W3C HTML
Subject: RE: client side includes (fwd)


With client-side includes the particular piece of data only needs to be
retrieved once.  This reduceds bandwidth.

HTTP/1.1 allows many entities to be downloaded with a single connection by
using keep-alive.  Thus there is no extra cost in making addition
connections, only 1 is needed.

Server load is further reduced by having the client ``assemble'' the
document.

Given all these considerations, I don't understand why anyone would want
to use server-side includes if a client-side include option were
available.

-- 
Russell O'Connor
           <http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~roconnor/>
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 18:01:37 UTC