- From: Sandy Smith <ssmith@forumone.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:54:50 -0500
- To: Trejkaz <trejkaz@trypticon.org>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Wrong. Moveable Type, to name just one example, will generate static pages (I'm using it). On Jan 23, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Trejkaz wrote: > On Sunday 23 January 2005 19:22, you wrote: >> Actually, no, there are applications far less static than weblogs, >> particularly the vast majority of weblogs, which are not frequently >> updated or commented upon. Hence many are in fact implemented as I >> describe. Many more use various caching schemes, even non-weblog Web >> applications. So your suggestion that they serve a different page to >> Google would not be feasible or as easy to implement as you seem to >> suggest. > > Generating two static pages for every one weblog page wouldn't exactly > be > rocket science, either. > > But anyway, the vast majority of weblogs that seem to exist right now > _are_ > dynamic, including AFAIK all the ones Google actually listed on that > page of > theirs. > > TX > > > -- > Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz@trypticon.org> > Web site: http://xaoza.net/ > Jabber ID: trejkaz@jabber.zim.net.au > GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73 > -- Sandy Smith, Senior Programmer Forum One Communications <ssmith@forumone.com> http://www.forumone.com/ tel. (703) 548-1855 x28
Received on Sunday, 23 January 2005 14:54:54 UTC