3 ms·
Seems obvious enough: a static website runs no server-side code to generate content, because the content is already complete. Perhaps more debatable, but I woul
by bradley13 3y ago
Seems obvious enough: a static website runs no server-side code to generate content, because the content is already complete. Perhaps more debatable, but I would also say no client-side code should be used. Just HTML, CSS, and static media files.
FWIW for my personal site, I run my own web server, which is incapable of running server-side code. It just copies files to sockets, nothing else.
- MrJohz 3y agoI think the key point that the original article was making was that there is server side generation going on - some server still needs load the file and turn it into an HTTP response, with all the correct headers, metadata, etc, and with the correct failures when the file can't be found. This server-side code needs to be implemented (and configured, etc) somewhere. That said, as the second article points out, static vs dynamic can still be a useful abstraction layer, as static servers like nginx and Apache are so solid that you can usually just treat them as part of the basic HTTP infrastructure.
- BrandoElFollito 3y agoStatic content can be hosted at the edge so the client calls never reach your server. There is obviously something that must serve the content but it is not necessarily you.