4 ms·

HTML is not hard its just makes little sense to write a website without some form of templating. If I add a navbar to my website the HTML way to do it is to cop

HTML is not hard its just makes little sense to write a website without some form of templating. If I add a navbar to my website the HTML way to do it is to copy and paste the navbar in to 100 different html files. And then when I want to add a new link to the navbar I have to copy it back in to those 100 files. Or I could use a static site generator and put it in the navbar file and run a command to have it inserted on every page. The author of this blog has dealt with this issue by having no site navigation.

roywiggins 7y ago
Just reach back to the other old method: framesets! Well, don't, they're deprecated. But you could. https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_frameset.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_frameset.asp
- notahacker 7y ago
  iframes aren't deprecated. I'm only half joking...
mrweasel 7y ago
Server Side Includes are still exists. It is in many ways surprising to me that SSI never for more usage that it has, it solves a lot of small scale problem, for minor websites.
- ricardo81 7y ago
  mrweasel indeed, exactly what I was thinking. SSI for the head, top, nav, bottom... unique content included. Update to the template is one simple edit. Taking it a step further with the likes of nginx, cache the response, compress it. done.
DrScientist 7y ago
What's missing from HTML is simple client side includes. It's mind boggling that it doesn't exist. XML has it - I can resuse the same image with a tag, but not HTML?? Why can't we have the same logic of SSI implemented in the browser? Probably the perfect being the enemy of the good again. This experiment by Jake Archibald looks interesting in this area. https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include
- petercooper 7y ago
  Here's another approach: https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/html-includes/ https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/html-includes/ <iframe src="/images/includespost/htmlexample.html" onload="this.before((this.contentDocument.body||this.contentDocument).children[0]);this.remove()"></iframe> Given that Googlebot will render and use JavaScript now, I'd be intrigued as to whether this works with it, but client side it seems OK.
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include/blob/master/research.md https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include/blob/mast... Also lists alternatives - see how whatwg request is bogged down in what/if complexity.

roywiggins 7y ago

Just reach back to the other old method: framesets! Well, don't, they're deprecated. But you could. https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_frameset.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_frameset.asp

notahacker 7y ago
iframes aren't deprecated. I'm only half joking...

mrweasel 7y ago

Server Side Includes are still exists. It is in many ways surprising to me that SSI never for more usage that it has, it solves a lot of small scale problem, for minor websites.

ricardo81 7y ago
mrweasel indeed, exactly what I was thinking. SSI for the head, top, nav, bottom... unique content included. Update to the template is one simple edit. Taking it a step further with the likes of nginx, cache the response, compress it. done.

DrScientist 7y ago

What's missing from HTML is simple client side includes. It's mind boggling that it doesn't exist. XML has it - I can resuse the same image with a tag, but not HTML?? Why can't we have the same logic of SSI implemented in the browser? Probably the perfect being the enemy of the good again. This experiment by Jake Archibald looks interesting in this area. https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include

petercooper 7y ago
Here's another approach: https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/html-includes/ https://www.filamentgroup.com/lab/html-includes/ <iframe src="/images/includespost/htmlexample.html" onload="this.before((this.contentDocument.body||this.contentDocument).children[0]);this.remove()"></iframe> Given that Googlebot will render and use JavaScript now, I'd be intrigued as to whether this works with it, but client side it seems OK.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include/blob/master/research.md https://github.com/jakearchibald/streaming-include/blob/mast... Also lists alternatives - see how whatwg request is bogged down in what/if complexity.