HTML preprocessor

[Toby Inkster]

And there are a number of situations when doing ceratin job on client's
machine without round trips to the server prevents customer's frustration

Indeed -- and that is a nicity. It's possible to combine server and client
side scripts in such a way that the function is calculated at client side
when possible, and if this fails will fall back to a server side routine.

For example, see this post of mine from Feb 2006:
http://message-id.net/<[email protected]>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

[TOP POSTING CORRECTED]

already duscussed in this here thread
If a home page is correctly designed, no need for SE to parse navigation,
footers and headers

What does that mean? On your home page you have all your site's pages
listed in links? Are this links static or dynamically inserted via
JavaScript? If the latter, then there is no SE indexing because the SE
will not see those links; if the former, then both your home page AND
your JavaScript CMS must updated and synchronized for each update to
your site a fundamentally flawed CMS strategy.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Shall we ask visitors of this NG how many of them have full control over the
server hosting their websites?

You don't need full control.

SSI comes for free with most basic entry-level hosting.

If you don't even have this, then there are techniques for doing the
merge immediately before publishing to the server. These are still
nominally "server side", as they certainly don't involve the client.

 

[aa]

Indeed -- and that is a nicity. It's possible to combine server and client
side scripts in such a way that the function is calculated at client side
when possible, and if this fails will fall back to a server side routine.

I am confused. Earlier someone said that JS should only be used for nicities
which might not be available without loosing functionality
what sort of calculation a function is going to do? Some time ago I used JS
to calculate and recalculate the sum of the PO (just to prevent a possible
outcry from html-for-every-possible-DIYbrowser purists, the site was selling
office luxtury items and the research indicated that 96% were executives fro
selling departnebts with IF and Netscape, so the decision was made to go for
JS and nobody regreted this thereafter)
You do not mean such functions, I guess?

 

[aa]

You don't need full control.

I am answering Toby who was talking about full control - shall I shortcut
you on him? Difficult to maintain a logical conversation when the
participants cross-over.
As to SSI comes for free with most basic entry-level hosting - shall I
rephrase the question - How many visitors here have their sites on servers
with SSI? And how many do not.

 

[aa]

What does that mean? On your home page you have all your site's pages
listed in links? Are this links static or dynamically inserted via
JavaScript? If the latter, then there is no SE indexing because the SE
will not see those links; if the former, then both your home page AND
your JavaScript CMS must updated and synchronized for each update to
your site a fundamentally flawed CMS strategy.

I gues we should step back and make definition before proceeding
What do you mean by SE indexing of a website?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I am confused. Earlier someone said that JS should only be used for nicities
which might not be available without loosing functionality
what sort of calculation a function is going to do? Some time ago I used JS
to calculate and recalculate the sum of the PO (just to prevent a possible
outcry from html-for-every-possible-DIYbrowser purists, the site was selling
office luxtury items and the research indicated that 96% were executives fro
selling departnebts with IF and Netscape, so the decision was made to go for
JS and nobody regreted this thereafter)
You do not mean such functions, I guess?

If the PO (I'm assuming means Purchase Order here) calculates the total
for the order solely by JavaScript without any verification and
recalculation server-side then it is a *seriously* flawed deployment!
Man, a hacker could have a field day with that form!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I am answering Toby who was talking about full control - shall I shortcut
you on him? Difficult to maintain a logical conversation when the
participants cross-over.

Yes and Andy properly quoted to show that he was replying to your
response to Toby. What's the problem? Usenet is *not* a two-way
conversation but a group discussion.

As to SSI comes for free with most basic entry-level hosting - shall I
rephrase the question - How many visitors here have their sites on servers
with SSI? And how many do not.

I do, but the point here is there are now so many cheap offerings that
*today* there is no reason to select a hosting package that does not
include server-side.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I gues we should step back and make definition before proceeding
What do you mean by SE indexing of a website?

Using *your* abbreviation: SE, Search Engine.

 

[Toby Inkster]

IF every customer selects IE the probability of having a JS-less user is 0.

Most people who disable Javascript use IE. It's often precisely because
they use IE (and because of IE's habit of giving scripts carte blanche to
do annoying things like hide toolbars, resize windows and so forth) that
they disable Javascript.

If they used Opera, or another browser that allowed finer-grained control
on exactly what things Javascript is or isn't allowed to do, then they
might not feel the need to disable Javascript altogether.

Shall we ask visitors of this NG how many of them have full control over the
server hosting their websites?

I would imagine that most do -- in that if there's something you can't
control, you can switch hosts -- in which case, you've controlled it!

 

[Toby Inkster]

I am confused. Earlier someone said that JS should only be used for nicities
which might not be available without loosing functionality
what sort of calculation a function is going to do?

The sort of functions I'm referring to are things like form validation
(i.e. checking that the form has been filled in correctly), totalling up
prices and other functions where a bit of client side script can return an
answer much faster than a server-side script.

When Javascript is not available in the browser, these forms are simply
submitted to the server and checked there -- as per my earlier example of
a simple function to add two numbers together.

The server is often also capable of more sophisticated form validation, so
you might want to do a check with Javascript first to catch any obvious
errors (empty fields, etc) with further checks on the server to catch
errors that would have been difficult or impossible to detect at the
client end (e.g. non-existing product code, invalid user name, spelling
error).

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Most people who disable Javascript use IE. It's often precisely because
they use IE (and because of IE's habit of giving scripts carte blanche to
do annoying things like hide toolbars, resize windows and so forth) that
they disable Javascript.

I believe MS with some of their past "security patches" tweaked IE's
security settings that disabled "Active script" (JavaScript) or at least
recommend user manually disable it until they could whip up another
bandaid patch.

 

[aa]

If the PO (I'm assuming means Purchase Order here) calculates the total
for the order solely by JavaScript without any verification and
recalculation server-side then it is a *seriously* flawed deployment!
Man, a hacker could have a field day with that form!

You are so keen to prove I am an idiot that you invent scanarios which never
took place
We were selling to corporate customers. The purchasing managers usually had
a certain sum to spend and they liked to play with the pricelist to increase
number of one item, decrease the other but be within the budget. That was
pretty handy on the client side. Their final submition was verified on the
server, of course.
Also there are such things as corporate networks where all the browsers are
known and little point to spend company's money to counteact an event which
is not going to happen.
You people are putting forward right reasons (and very well known to those
in the trade) but you overidolize them and are busy blowing things up like
insurance agents who get horrified when learning that you have not have
insurance against this, that and that, and readily produce stories what
might happen if you don't.
It might indeed, but much more often it does not and people somehow
misteriously survive.
Again, you advices are reasonable but they are not absolute and not all are
the best in every circumstance. No point getting insulted is someone did nit
immediatelly used some of your directives

 

[aa]

Using *your* abbreviation: SE, Search Engine.

Jonathan, are you OK? Or this is your sense of humour which I am expected
to appreciate?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan, are you OK?

I'm just fine.

Or this is your sense of humour which I am expected
to appreciate?

No, just being factual. You did initiate the abbreviation, no?

 

[aa]

I'm just fine.


No, just being factual. You did initiate the abbreviation, no?

Sorry, but with the previous reply you looked more like being fucktual if
you see what I mean. If not, I appologize.
My question was "What do you mean by SE indexing of a website?"
I did not ask "What do I mean by SE" did I ?
Did you bonafide failed to understand the question? English is not my mother
tongue. Shall I try to rephrase it?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Sorry, but with the previous reply you looked more like being fucktual if
you see what I mean. If not, I appologize.

Not to my impression, but your comment lowers mine of yours...

My question was "What do you mean by SE indexing of a website?"
I did not ask "What do I mean by SE" did I ?
Did you bonafide failed to understand the question? English is not my mother
tongue. Shall I try to rephrase it?

Not from your question, but what I said was what you mean by saying "If
a home page is correctly designed, no need for SE to parse navigation,
footers and headers"

So what you mean by "properly designed" home page that will allow search
engines to index your site's pages without parsing the navigational links?

 

[aa]

So what you mean by "properly designed" home page that will allow search
engines to index your site's pages without parsing the navigational links?

To answer your question I wanted to understand what do you mean by "search
engines to index your site's pages"
Thank you for helping me to rephrase the question

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

To answer your question I wanted to understand what do you mean by "search
engines to index your site's pages"
Thank you for helping me to rephrase the question

When a search ending indexes your site, it travels all the
interconnected links to log what pages your site contains. Depending on
what the content is and irrelevancy it will rank and list the url to
each page with respect to search words that people use with the search
engine.

So my question is by your definition of a "properly designed" home page
how would it facilitate this process without parsing your navigational
links?

 

[aa]

Good, now I think we talk the same language
"list the url to each page with respect to search words" - no need EACH
page to be listed
Get just home page to be listed but list high. It is better to have 1 page
on the first SE page then 10 pages on SE's 10th page
Pages on a site have different relevance to a subject searched. So indexing
one the most relevant should suffice. Letting SE going to other pages dilute
relevance and therefore ranking.
Of cource if a SE's algorithm ranks sites basing on the number of pages on
the site then indeed you need to let him know about the other pages. But
links to other pages are present in the text of the page outside navigation
anyway.
Disclaimer. This here post is my personal opinion and as such does not
preted to be the Most Correct One
PS. If you do not use JS in navigation could you please refer me to an
example to such a navigation?