By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,094 Members | 893 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,094 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

includeHTML vs PPWizard

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies


P: n/a
In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >,
WG**********@spammotel.com says...
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.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
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

Teffy wrote:
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


Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
m
Teffy wrote:
.........[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.

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
....via Tux and Ice: 0% GatesBloat.

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of WG**********@spammotel.com (Teffy) wrote:
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.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a


Nick Kew wrote:
In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of WG**********@spammotel.com (Teffy) wrote:

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

Jul 20 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.