includes

[Helpful person]

I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml. I am very excited about how easy this
seems to be, how clean the code is and the versatility of the
language, I have one question at present.

I have found out how to use includes using

<!--#include virtual="anyfil ehere" -->

My question: Is the code inserted exactly as in the include file in
the place where the include is requested or are there some surprises?

https://www.richardfisher.com

[Andy Dingley]

Re: includes

On 4 Sep, 16:17, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.c omwrote:

www.richardfisher.com

OK, I've had a look now. That web page is vile, throw it away and
start again.

The markup is an unholy mess of M$oft namespaces, abused XML, 3.2
presentational markup and the usual garbage we associate with M$oft
Orifice output. I didn't actually know FrontPlague was this bad! I
thought only Word made markup _quite_ this bogus.

It also looks terrible. Text blocks overlapping each other all over
the place. I presume it's due to M$oft's usual garbage of absolute-
positioned CSS with pixel dimensions.

Do yourself a favour: get a copy of "Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML"
and a simple text editor. When you've read that, start on Lie & Bos'
"Cascading Style Sheets". Keep reading the newsgroups.

[André Gillibert]

Re: includes

Helpful person wrote:

I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml.

Let me keep some light of hope.
The page you linked to is still supposed to be in its FrontPage tag soup
form (September 4 2007).
Right?

It's not the "clean XHTML code". Okay?

PS: This page gave me ideas that I could use if ever there's an "HTML
obfuscation contest".
And these ideas could apply to valid, non-conforming, HTML code.

--
You can contact me at <tabkanDELETETH ISnaz@yahoDELET ETHATo.fr>

[Helpful person]

Re: includes

On Sep 4, 4:33 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETH IS...@yahodelet ethato.frwrote:

Helpful person wrote:

I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml.

>
Let me keep some light of hope.
The page you linked to is still supposed to be in its FrontPage tag soup
form (September 4 2007).
Right?
>
It's not the "clean XHTML code". Okay?
>
PS: This page gave me ideas that I could use if ever there's an "HTML
obfuscation contest".
And these ideas could apply to valid, non-conforming, HTML code.
>
--
You can contact me at <tabkanDELETETH IS...@yahoDELET ETHATo.fr>

FrontPage creates very verbose and unreadable (to me) code. To make
things worse it's probably easier to learn html xhtml than FrontPage
with all it's bugs and ommissions.

https://www.richardfisher.com

[Ben C]

Re: includes

On 2007-09-04, Helpful person <rrllff@yahoo.c omwrote:
[...]

FrontPage creates very verbose and unreadable (to me) code. To make
things worse it's probably easier to learn html xhtml than FrontPage
with all it's bugs and ommissions.

You are right, and I'm very glad to see you've figured it out for
yourself.

I keep saying this, but no-one believes me because they think I don't
understand newbies.

www.richardfisher.com

[Scott Bryce]

Re: includes

Helpful person wrote:

FrontPage creates very verbose and unreadable (to me) code. To make
things worse it's probably easier to learn html xhtml than FrontPage
with all it's bugs and ommissions.

Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
things, don't you?

[David E. Ross]

Re: includes

On 9/4/2007 8:17 AM, Helpful person wrote:

I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml. I am very excited about how easy this
seems to be, how clean the code is and the versatility of the
language, I have one question at present.
>
I have found out how to use includes using
>
<!--#include virtual="anyfil ehere" -->
>
My question: Is the code inserted exactly as in the include file in
the place where the include is requested or are there some surprises?
>

https://www.richardfisher.com

>

I do all my pages in HTML 4.01. I do them manually in Wordpad, and the
HTML just seems to flow out of my fingertips and into my keyboard. So I
can't help you with XHMTL.

However, I do use SSIs. I just now determined that your server is
indeed Apache, which does support SSIs.

I suggest that the files you wish to include not have .html or .htm at
the end (file extensions). Then, Apache will not try to serve them as
Web pages if they are requested by mistake.

The Web page that contains the <!--#include virtual="anyfil ehere" -->
declaration needs to be executable for Apache to perform the SSI
operation.

Apache will take the cited file and insert it as if you had manually
inserted it before uploading the Web page to the Web server. A user
will not be able to determine that this has happened except that the
time-stamp on the Web page will equal the time at which Apache served
it, not the time when it was uploaded to the server or when it was last
modified.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997

[Helpful person]

Re: includes

On Sep 4, 5:58 pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbr yce.comwrote:

>
Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
things, don't you?

Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.

https://www.richardfisher.com

[Michael Fesser]

Re: includes

..oO(Helpful person)

>On Sep 4, 5:58 pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbr yce.comwrote:

>>
>Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
>things, don't you?

>
>Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
>as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
>the standard to replace HTML.

Maybe XHTML 2 in some years. But this is incompatible with XHTML 1 ...

Micha

[Andy Dingley]

Re: includes

On 5 Sep, 12:34, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.c omwrote:

Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.

If you can't appreciate the very real problems in using it, then you
really need to do some more research before you dive in.

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: includes

Helpful person <rrllff@yahoo.c omwrites:

I see no reason not to write strict XHTML

Search the group archives. You'll see plenty of reasons to avoid XHTML,
most of which can be summarized as "pathetic browser support."

(especially as I am starting from scratch)

On the other hand, that's a damn good reason to use a strict DTD. :-)

as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.

Eventually maybe, but not soon - even the W3C has acknowledged this, and
re-chartered the HTML working group back in March:

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>

The WG produced the first working draft for HTML 5 a couple of weeks ago:

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/>

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Neredbojias]

Re: includes

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:34:46 GMT
Helpful person scribed:

On Sep 4, 5:58 pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbr yce.comwrote:

>>
>Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
>things, don't you?

>
Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.

It won't. Not the xhtml you see today (-not even xhtml2.)

Html is the way to go for the present. You can either believe that or not,
but there's the truth, nonetheless.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Scott Bryce]

Re: includes

Helpful person wrote:

Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.

XHTML was an unfortunate deviation from HTML and is now a dead end. I
was one of the many who jumped on the XHTML bandwagon, and now I am
developing in HTML 4.01 Strict.

You can search the archives of this group for links to sites that
explain the problems with XHTML.

[Helpful person]

Re: includes

Thanks for all the useful replies.

https://www.richardfisher.com

(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: includes

Helpful person wrote:

(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)

<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.or g/check?verbose=1 &uri=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.richardf isher.com%2F>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?

http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck