Okay then, we're decided;

Of the two ways to go, Using client scripting to include is more a
workaround than a solution, whereas SSIs, although requiring the data to be
retransmitted, should provide a much cleaner alternative.

I see people's points about it only being a tiny amount of data.  I think I
was just going overboard with the whole reusable components idea.

I'll post a link to the site once it's worth a look at, maybe people will
have more suggestions on how I can minimise the total size of the content.

Thanks fot th' ideas people,


Andrew



-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Evans [mailto:Chucke(at)captura.com]

I second that recommendation on using includes. For standard elements, it's
the way to go.

---------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Evans
Web Marketing Manager
Captura Software, Inc.
(425) 424-1155
chucke(at)captura.com
www.captura.com

-----Original Message-----

From: allred(at)its.state.ms.us [mailto:allred(at)its.state.ms.us]

I'm not sure I agree with your unstated conclusion here. Yes, you would
reload each included file, using SSI, but the file size could be, and
probably should be, very low, say under 2-3k. Even with images in the
included files, you would have the browser cache to help you out.

I have a site where I use no less than three includes per page. All of the
file sizes added together don't get much over 10k on most pages.

I think you shouldn't rule out this approach, since it presents no
accessibility problems like Javascript does.
 

----------------
From: Andrew Sturmey

<snip />

Since server-side includes are a no go area as they'd have to be
retransmitted in each page, I thought a cachable client side include would
be in order.  Never having done this before I looked to the official html
specification for answers.

<snip />

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA