3 ms·
What's the alternative other than simply doing without this feature?
by lelanthran 3y ago
What's the alternative other than simply doing without this feature?
- Quekid5 3y agoE.g. Apache's Server Side Includes[0] allows for <!--#include virtual="/footer.html" --> Tbf, you did specify 'server language' in a post further up the comment chain, but the the thing is that it doesn't have to be much more complicated that SSI -- assuming it's available for your deployment target, of course. (SSI obviously does not require JavaScript.) [0] https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/howto/ssi.html https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/howto/ssi.html
- lelanthran 3y agoI've used those before, but I feel that having something that works within the spec, independent of any particular implementation's extensions is much more valuable for longevity. Sure, you can use $A if using $B server, or use $C when using $D language, or use $E when using $F framework, or use $G when using $H reverse-proxy, or use $I when using $J CDN, or use $K when using $L hosted cloud service ... Or you can just use what's in the specification which works on all of the above, but won't work on clients with Javascript disabled. It's a "choose your poison" scenario.