Posted by dorayme on 11/22/06 03:36

In article <MPG.1fce41c0507c1345989739@news.aardvark.net.au>,
Joe (GKF) <joedinmore@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-9E1BE8.07560322112006@news-
> vip.optusnet.com.au>, doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au says...
> >
> > Every time includes are discussed, someone says how you don't
> > have to edit lots and lots of files on your own machine.
> ...
> It's true!
>

Yes, I favour saying true things. Generally.

The context was there is often an implication that this is always
a laborious thing to do. This is not true. The other thing no one
utters in the same breath is that you can't actually see your
pages as designed by simply dragging the files to a browser.
Unless you do other at first complicated things like run a little
server, a preprocessor, keep duplicate full hard coded html pages
etc etc. It is never mentioned in the same breath. And yes, there
is often space to mention it. But it does not suit the breathless
spruiking of includes.

> > ... use any decent text editor's Find and Replace to change
> > all the files in any given directory or folder. ...
> >
> Perhaps -

There is no perhaps about it, except in the merely logical sense
that anything that is true is also ispso facto and factotum
vericum and laudem ipso veritas possible. It's true what I say.
You have to believe me. Think I will go take a 4 minute shower.
Then bake a cake. And brush up on my Latin more...

> but that would necessarily lead to having a "live" link on the
> current page (whichever that happens to be). Using a tiny bit of PHP
> eliminates that.
>
>

....live, shmive... it is what it is. The footer appears because
the footer is written dead or alive in a div on each html page.
But not for long for dorayme. I am going to be a bit like you and
go all sexy and modern and use includes.


> >... But I doubt
> > there can be any time savings for the web developer to speak of
> > with most sites.
> >
> Trust us. There is. I use an "include"-d navmenu on every new page I
> do, even the "Big Dry" thing, which is only four or five screens.

I don't believe there is any significant saving in time over 4 or
5 screens. Not when the million hours I have taken to read every
goddam tute on the internet on these matters is taken into
account!

Your general site has far more than 5 screens (and very nice ones
too I might add), you just are all set up and of course it is
easier for you.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]