|
|
Posted by a human person on 11/20/06 23:47
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-84E6E8.10175621112006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <4sejtcFvg06eU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote:
>
> > > Some sites I maintain have a lot of pages and changing the names
> > > of all the files is the last thing I would do, not the first ;-)
> >
> > A small shell script fixes both file names and anchor urls, it's not
that you
> > must to rename files and fix links manually.
> >
> > http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/Bash-Prog-Intro-HOWTO.html#ss12.3
> >
> > and checking the man page for sed.
> >
> >
> Sorry J.O., I may be misunderstanding all this. Sounds terribly
> complicated. Checking "man pages for sed". For sed!
>
> Honestly, it was easier using find and replace in my text editor,
> (3 secs work to change a site) and on broadband not that much
> longer to reload all the html files. No other downsides I could
> see (there is one, I learnt recently, to help the user: about re
> caching repeated text...) but I am wondering if all the claims
> for all the trumpeting of the great value of includes is greatly
> exaggerated now!
>
> But I will persist because it seems so stupid not to have
> includes! I guess a solution to this formatting thing will emerge
> at some stage!
>
includes are great - i have a site with 40(more) pages each of which had a
menu on - so everytime i needed to change the menu i had to do it on every
page, so i sat down one day changed all the content to php and made the
header and menu and footer into includes. sorry for gushing but its saved me
so much time in the long run.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|