I'm not sure exactly what Dreamweaver library files are (you might want to explain that in your article next time, hint hint), but I'm assuming they are used to make templates and dynamic content. In that case, do not use proprietary tools; use either SSI [uiuc.edu] or a scripting language (go PHP!).
Here are the tools I use for web design:
Source editing:Crimson Editor [crimsoneditor.com], a freely available text editor that supports syntax coloring and just about anything you'd ever want in a text editor. Somewhat well-designed GU
Some times you don't have access to server side solutions (home pages on a public server you don' t control for instance). Other times you could do a server side solution, but the processing overhead is unwanted. If you are statically sharing the same bit of HTML on multiple pages why use SSI or PHP?
They make the server do the work every single time a user views a page, instead of one time before the page is uploaded to the server.
For the programmers out there, this is analogous to doing something at
1.) The time required to "process" a server-side include on a non-caching, shared-hosting server is negligible. I invite you to run some timed tests with lynx.
2.) The point behind using SSI is so that, every time the template is updated, only one file needs to be updated and uploaded.
3.) Apache runs every HTML page through the interpreter regardless of whether it actually contains SSI code.
In any case, we can all agree that SSI is better than using JavaScript includes:)
1.) The time required to "process" a server-side include on a non-caching, shared-hosting server is negligible. I invite you to run some timed tests with lynx.
That depends on server-load, and you need things like xbithack to get proper caching with SSI anyway.
2.) The point behind using SSI is so that, every time the template is updated, only one file needs to be updated and uploaded.
The point behind using SSI is to reduce maintenance work. This happens at the expense of server resources. Fo
Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.
Informative (Score:2)
Here are the tools I use for web design:
Source editing: Crimson Editor [crimsoneditor.com], a freely available text editor that supports syntax coloring and just about anything you'd ever want in a text editor. Somewhat well-designed GU
Re:Informative (Score:3, Insightful)
They make the server do the work every single time a user views a page, instead of one time before the page is uploaded to the server.
For the programmers out there, this is analogous to doing something at
Re:Informative (Score:3, Informative)
2.) The point behind using SSI is so that, every time the template is updated, only one file needs to be updated and uploaded.
3.) Apache runs every HTML page through the interpreter regardless of whether it actually contains SSI code.
In any case, we can all agree that SSI is better than using JavaScript includes
Re:Informative (Score:2)
That depends on server-load, and you need things like xbithack to get proper caching with SSI anyway.
The point behind using SSI is to reduce maintenance work. This happens at the expense of server resources. Fo