|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 08/10/07 12:04
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:15:50 GMT
Bernhard Sturm scribed:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> I sometimes wonder what other folks do in regard to the includes, do
>>> they put in all the enclosing element markup within the include or
>>> leave the container explicit in the html file to remind the author
>>> how the include goes. I tend to go the greedy route and put all in
>>> the include. This is to show high wire courage in the face of a
>>> creeping dementia.
>>
>> I place everything in the include file that goes with that object. Can't
>> see any reason to have to remember to add containers or whatever to the
>> main file. Just add the 'include' line.
>>
> sometimes it's easier to have just the actual content in the included
> file, and to leave all the containers in the main file. If you follow
> the idea of an 'include' you will most probably end up with this
> solution: the container will not change, but the included content might
> change (if you dynamically include files). Therefore you only have to
> define the containers once (in the main file), and the included pages do
> only contain content information. This has another advantage: it's
> easier to edit such a 'container-less' page width a WYSIWIG-editor such
> as dreamweaver and the like in a 'non-cms-environment' where less
> experienced users are uploading only content-pages via FTP...
>
> but there are many roads to choose :-)
Ultimately, a container is _always_ left in the receiving file.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|