> At what point do we see static sites take a fair share of the top-X-trafficked sites? Top 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Honestly, most media sites could (and probabl

> At what point do we see static sites take a fair share of the top-X-trafficked sites? Top 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Honestly, most media sites could (and probably should) be static. Think of Time, or Cracked, or CNN: a lot of content, which could be regenerated once and viewed by millions of people per regeneration. Comments could be grafted in with JavaScript (which would suit me just fine, since I don't read such sites for the comments anyway). > This is probably great for a small corp's info site... but then the client asks for a contact form or members/admin secured area, and there we go down the rabbit hole again. It's not an all-or-nothing thing; a web server can serve both static and dynamic content, after all.