Talk:Server Side Includes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-did the first 3 paragraphs, hope that helps somewhat.

Whatever you did, it seems to be effective. I certainly don't see a need for the cleanup template anymore. If anything, it's refreshing how accessible this article is to a layman when compared to some of the other articles on scripting languages. Here's a vote for removing the template. skeeJay 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] SHTML

SHTML = Scripted HTML using scripting languages via Server Side Includes. Server Side Includes are used to extend the HTML markup language via scripting languages that are executed on the web server. The resultant package of HTML text is delivered to the web client for rendering by the web browser software on the client machine.

SHTML used to contain the above. Edited out. 222.99.205.117 14:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
is it just me or whenvever you read that, do you read it as "shit mail"?
Doesn't SHTML just mean "server-parsed HTML"? At least that's how the Apache handler is called. Thomas 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

What is the history here? Did Apache introduce the .shtml and <!--#directive parameter=value parameter=value--> syntax? 209.92.136.131 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ambiguous wording here

The following sentence is ambiguous to me:

"The file parameter defines the included file as relative to the document path; the virtual parameter defines the included file as relative to the document root."

Does "document" refer to the included file itself or the file that will accept the included file? THis is not clear to the layman. The wording should be either:

"The file parameter defines the included file as relative to the included file path; the virtual parameter defines the included file as relative to the included file root."

or

"The file parameter defines the included file as relative to the path of the document that will receive the included file; the virtual parameter defines the included file as relative to the document root."

Should there be a discussion about configuring the Apache server to enable SSIs?

StevesGroup 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Client Side Includes?

Seems counter-intuitive to have what is essentially the opposite of server-side includes as a sub-section of the server-side includes page. Perhaps a separate page should be made for client side includes, or both should be moved to a more general page such as HTML Includes. I'd do this myself right now, but I'd like some feedback before making such a major change. --216.99.114.157 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, it is irrelevant. If at all then there could be a reference to a more general topic or overview, e.g. "For other technologies pertaining to dynamic web content, see ...". Thomas 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkoeppe (talk • contribs)

[edit] Request removal of section

The section "The conventional view" is written in very poor style (at least for an encyclopedic article) and irrelevant and subjective. I suggest that it be removed, or heavily reworded.

Thomas 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)