Posted by dorayme on 11/20/06 23:17

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!

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]