|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/10/07 21:01
In article <f9hds5$tai$1@aioe.org>,
Bernhard Sturm <sturmnixspam@datacomm.ch> wrote:
> 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 :-)
True about the roads and an interesting point about editing. I am
not quite sure about the point re Dreamweaver though? If one has
<div id="nav">
include command
</div>
This is a container road, right?
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|