|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 01/18/07 14:04
aa wrote:
> "David Dorward" <dorward@gmail.com>
> > > Javascript?
> > Running on the client? Very bad idea. It becomes invisible to anyone
> > without JS enabled, including search engine indexing bots.
Client-side assembly of this pre-processed templating is a bad idea,
whether (as David says) by JS, or by any other possible mehod. It's a
one-off static publishing process, so do it that way. Merge the files
when you publish them and have the server serve their simple static
merged versions. This works better in terms of what matters, the
content you send out to the client. Caching will be assisted, for one
thing.
Client-side JS is of course a bad idea for anything that is essential
to the core functioning of a site or page.
Given your other recent clueless post, you're not surprising me here.
8-(
> 1. The author is talking about navigation, header, footer do not need to be
> scanned by Search Engines.
That is simply ridiculous. Of course navigation needs to be accessible
to minimal non-JS spiders.
You claim that there is some sort of "menu bar navigation" that
benefits from JS and some "minimal links" navigation that doesn't
require it, and so is spiderable anyway. Although you might have a
point in relation to some issue of JS dropdowns for the main menu, the
OP here is talking about pre-processing include files for content
management reasons, not to enhance the display of their menu bar.
If they need CMS of one set of links, they need CMS for all of their
usages of these links. If this CMS is achieved by client-side JS, then
a non-JS client would lose it in all instances where it had been used.
> 2. What is the percentage of non-JS visitors?
High enough. Google doesn't use it, and you care about Google.
> Are you saying that JS
> should not be used at all?
No, but only to enhance a "core page" that remains functional without
it.
For a separate reason, client-side techniques (either JS or <iframe>)
are a poor idea as a substitute for SSI.
[Back to original message]
|