includeHTML vs PPWizard

[Teffy]

I have been using HTML-Kit as my editor. I have been using PPWizard
pre-processor to insert common blocks of HTML. I am considering
switching to includeHTML as my pre-processor. My impression of the
pros and cons is as follows:

1) PPWizard *substitutes* HTML code for special tags, so you have 2
files for each page: the "before" and "after" files. To see a display
of the final form, one must view the "after" file. To re-edit, one
must switch back to the "before" file, make a change, run it through
PPWizard again (outside of HTML-Kit), and view the new "after" file.

includeHTML substitutes code between special tags, and *retains* those
tags. So, one needs to edit only one file (creating new versions), and
that file can always be displayed in final form. Thus, re-editing is
easier with includeHTML.

2) The "after" file generated by PPWizard shows no evidence of
pre-processor tags. I am the volunteer webmaster for a small
non-profit group http://www.catsociety.org. If I get "hit by a bus,"
another volunteer who may not have the time/experience/desire to learn
the pre-processor would find it easier to pick up and run with the
files generated by PPWizard.

Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

Thanks,
Teffy

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

1) PPWizard *substitutes* HTML code for special tags, so you have 2
files for each page: the "before" and "after" files. To see a display
of the final form, one must view the "after" file. To re-edit, one
must switch back to the "before" file, make a change, run it through
PPWizard again (outside of HTML-Kit), and view the new "after" file.

includeHTML substitutes code between special tags, and *retains* those
tags. So, one needs to edit only one file (creating new versions), and
that file can always be displayed in final form. Thus, re-editing is
easier with includeHTML.

2) The "after" file generated by PPWizard shows no evidence of
pre-processor tags. I am the volunteer webmaster for a small
non-profit group http://www.catsociety.org. If I get "hit by a bus,"
another volunteer who may not have the time/experience/desire to learn
the pre-processor would find it easier to pick up and run with the
files generated by PPWizard.

Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

Either write some documentation for the process you go through now, or
switch to SSI.

 

[Teffy Smith]

I almost forgot:

3) I think you cannot execute logic with includeHTML. With PPWizard,
the page navigation links included are different depending on which page
is being generated. Or, maybe there is a better way to do something
similar? http://www.catsociety.org

Teffy

 

[m]

.........[snipped] ...................
Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

You can actually learn enough Perl to write your own
quick-and-dirty preprocessor in no time, and you'd be
doing yourself the great favor of learning a web
programming language.

 

[Nick Kew]

Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

I've no idea - I haven't used them. But your account of them looks
too coherent to be nonsense, so I'll take it as accurate. I make no
comment on whether either of them generate "sane" HTML beyond the
scope of your specific question.

Any preprocessor that relies on special tags that are not defined
in HTML *must* ensure they are not served up to browsers. From your
post it's clear that PPWizard gets that right, and likely that
includeHTML screws it up.

I say "likely", because there is an ugly but legitimate hack that
gets round the problem: namely embedding preprocessor instructions in
<!-- html comments -->. This is of course best known in SSI, and if
that's what includeHTML is leaving behind you're OK.

SGML or XML offer more robust solutions to this. But you can't present
them to todays web browsers without a lot more work, and a more
sophisticated publishing framework such as mod_xmlns or XSLT.

 

[Teffy Smith]

Any preprocessor that relies on special tags that are not defined
in HTML *must* ensure they are not served up to browsers. From your
post it's clear that PPWizard gets that right, and likely that
includeHTML screws it up.

I say "likely", because there is an ugly but legitimate hack that
gets round the problem: namely embedding preprocessor instructions in
<!-- html comments -->. This is of course best known in SSI, and if
that's what includeHTML is leaving behind you're OK.

Comments are what it leaves behind. Thanks for your thoughts.

Teffy