client side includes

Client Side Include is simple, it's what that OTHER page maker (FrontPage)
uses.


"Gary White" <reply (AT) newsgroup (DOT) please> wrote

Julian Roberts wrote:

I guess the equivalent of a client side include is a Library Item.


Nope. A library item is a design time tool.


Gary

Equivalent was possibly the wrong word. Those that can't use SSI might use
Lbrary items to achieve similar functionality.

--
Jules
http://www.charon.co.uk/charoncart
Charon Cart 3
Shopping Cart Extension for Dreamweaver MX/MX 2004

Didn't mean to be vague. Just wanted to illustrate that "client side
include" is a term.

But It's a term that only Builder.com seems to use. ;o)

it's better than ssi because it doesn't use the server to process the call
but rather the work is done by the browser hence less bandwith and faster
downloading.

Builder.com has gone stupid. ;o)

SSI have nothing to do with bandwidth. The same amount of data, whether
called server side or client side is sent through the 'pipe'. Acutally, an
SSI would be a tad less as there's one less server request.

Yes, there is perfomance hit when using SSI, but that hit is so miniscule in
99.99% of all sites that it's really not even worth thinking about.

And, again, this DEPENDS on javascript being on the client end. One should
not depend on javascript to get content to the end user.

But the fact that you gurus don't know much about it raises red
flags to me that it isn't a recognized standard yet.

How old is the article you are looking at? The advice they are giving you is
terribly out of date and/or just bad advice.

-Darrel

But the fact that you gurus don't know much about it raises red
flags to me that it isn't a recognized standard yet.

Hmm..."client side include" returns 691 hits on google.

"server side include" returns 53,000

I did find the article you might be referring to:
http://builder.com.com/5100-6371-5172019.html

The 'benefits' the article touts are mainly theoretical...hardly measurable
in most cases. And they gloss over the main con...that it's entirely
dependant on javascript.

I'd say that CSI is mildly interesting for a read, but rather impractical
and offers no real value and some real drawbacks compared to SSI.

The author uses his own site as an example of CSI:

http://www.greggriffiths.org/

Turn off javascript and try navigating through the site...not terribly
convenient.

-Darrel

Thanks all for you insight and opinions. I'll be sticking with ssi. I'm no
explorer!

Fred

"darrel" <notreal (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

But the fact that you gurus don't know much about it raises red
flags to me that it isn't a recognized standard yet.

Hmm..."client side include" returns 691 hits on google.

"server side include" returns 53,000

I did find the article you might be referring to:
http://builder.com.com/5100-6371-5172019.html

The 'benefits' the article touts are mainly theoretical...hardly
measurable
in most cases. And they gloss over the main con...that it's entirely
dependant on javascript.

I'd say that CSI is mildly interesting for a read, but rather impractical
and offers no real value and some real drawbacks compared to SSI.

The author uses his own site as an example of CSI:

http://www.greggriffiths.org/

Turn off javascript and try navigating through the site...not terribly
convenient.

-Darrel

It can't work. The included file would have to be PRELOADED on the client's
system, no?

I think it's a red herring.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Herb" <herbh30 (AT) swbell (DOT) net> wrote

Client Side Include is simple, it's what that OTHER page maker (FrontPage)
uses.


"Gary White" <reply (AT) newsgroup (DOT) please> wrote in message
news:2m4ci01bjiuk49hn7dl724f9mesdsmk40g (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
Julian Roberts wrote:

I guess the equivalent of a client side include is a Library Item.


Nope. A library item is a design time tool.


Gary