- From: Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:25:08 +0100
- To: Beth Skwarecki <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 15:07 15/12/2000 -0500, Beth Skwarecki wrote: >> SSI would lose you some performance, for no good reason in this case. Imho >> <link> is cleaner, better bandwidth-wise, and also has the advantage that >> it won't interfere with the validity of your (x)html code. With an external >> style sheet you don't have to escape < and friends. > >The time it takes to insert an include is negligible, though I grant you >that it's existent. By performance I meant server performance. If you're already using includes on all those pages, then it won't make a difference, but if you don't have them on for all those pages then you'll lose performance. >The difference between <link> and an include, bandwidth-wise, is just about >zero. Actually, the include would save you one line. Well by include I understood including the entire style sheet (in <style> tags) using SSI. That would waste bandwidth. >SSI doesn't require the escaping of any characters, and won't interfere with >code validity at all. It's done with a tag that looks like a comment, and >the included file should also be written in valid html. I think everybody here knows how SSI works :) -- robin b. Always remember you're unique just like everyone else.
Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 15:26:00 UTC