Suzanne — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:11:01 +0000

I don't think it's as big an issue now -- in yesteryear, there was a real concern about CPU usage. You can still overload the server, but mainly it's an issue for big sites now.

Server-side includes allow you a lot more freedom and reliability, since they don't depend on browser support.

Roo — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 05:19:24 +0000

Link.........vewwwwwwy intewesting! I saw the link to that article on Zeldman's site but hadn't read it yet.

I wonder what the pros and cons of would be between using includes or this. I think I read that it's more taxing on the server to need to parse things using SSI, though not too much?

Suzanne — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:14:00 +0000

Heh, yeah, any server-side trickery requires the pages be parsed on the server -- and the extension identifies how to do it (usually).

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dynanav/

Colin Barnette — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:23:14 +0000

Edit: Nevermind me. The whole of the problem was that I didn't understand SSI to begin with. I thought that the webserver searched the document for SSI directives regardless of filetype, and would only load .shtml files. I didn't know you couldn't use SSI directives in .html. Doh.

Colin Barnette — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:03:42 +0000

Doh! Darn syntax! Thanks.

Suzanne — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:31:31 +0000

No space.

Also, check alistapart.com for articles on for perhaps another option.