2 ms·

> I wouldn't consider this "static HTML" why not? this could be served on a server which does not have any dynamic execution capabilities, and does not require

by chii 4y ago

> I wouldn't consider this "static HTML" why not? this could be served on a server which does not have any dynamic execution capabilities, and does not require the server to handle any other request other than just the HTML.

userbinator 4y ago
In my experience, that's normally called "static hosting", not "static HTML".