server side include

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: burchard@geom.umn.edu: "Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?"
• Previous message: Liam Relihan: "Re: A Formalism for Internet Information References"
• Reply: Rob McCool: "Re: server side include"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 16:00:45 --100
Message-id: <9404171356.AA00536@Xtreme>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: hoesel@chem.rug.nl
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: hoesel@chem.rug.nl (frans van hoesel)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: server side include
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1695      
Content-Length: 1695      
Content-Type: text
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL5]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL5]

The new httpd 1.2 from ncsa has changed the handling of
server side includes. 
In my opinion this is unwanted extra elements to html. the reasoning is
as follows:
1) server side includes are only activated for files with some file
   extension.
   This is a realy good idea! It save many cpu cycles. it even recognizes
   certain files eg having specified the 'extension' as index.html the
   deamon tries to do server side includes for every file ending in
   'index.html' . I'm not sure if this was the intended behaviour, but it
   is good for me.
2) the include syntax is weird. The idea of using comments for it is the one
   I think is unnesseccary and unwanted. what's wrong with a element
   of <include "ape.html"> Nothing it seems to me. every browser is
   expected to ignore it when not recognized (in case it does and up
   in the client, without being included(this was the argument to use
   the comment element for it)).
   Also the include could be handle by either the client or the server
   (ofcourse you want to include it by the server, but it's the fact
   that one can use the same syntax for it... <include "some url"> could
   be a file from any machine, but could be included by the server before
   sending it to the client if it so happens that the file is located
   on the same server *and* the file extension matches the one defined
   under (1)).

I really don't want to stress this to much (the harm being done already), but
please keep don't keep adding definitions of new elements or pseudo
elements (hidden in a comment) were other elements can serve the same purpose

Please don't flame me with html editors will do it for you. (they won't for me)

- frans