Hi, this discussion has been had before - follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg22706.html
:) Paul ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lamberson Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:26 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Server-side includes? I suppose I have always very much disliked server-side includes, for no reason I can immediately think up, they just seem like bad form. But if I really think about it, it doesn't matter what goes on as long as it gets to the client in a standards-compliant, semantically correct form. A business partner of mine wants to use includes in our site, and I want to tell him no, but I also can't think of a good reason to give him. My question is: are server-side includes good, bad, or neither in the eyes of standards and semantics? ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
