Same table, different pages

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Is it possible to have one table somehow 'called' to appear on different pages?
I want something to appear on all pages, yet only want to (re)edit one item.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[brucie]

in post: <news:2h************@uni-berlin.de>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di**@neopax.com> said:

Is it possible to have one table somehow 'called' to appear on different pages?
I want something to appear on all pages, yet only want to (re)edit one item.

http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Include_one_file_in_another

--
b r u c i e

[John D.]

"brucie" <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message
news:2h************@uni-berlin.de...

in post: <news:2h************@uni-berlin.de>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di**@neopax.com> said:

Is it possible to have one table somehow 'called' to appear on different pages? I want something to appear on all pages, yet only want to (re)edit one

item.
I haven't tried it, but was considering the same thing for a navigation bar.
http://javascript.internet.com/navig...avigation.html
I might try this

[David Dorward]

John D. wrote:

I haven't tried it, but was considering the same thing for a navigation
bar.
http://javascript.internet.com/navig...avigation.html
I might try this

I wouldn't its very Google unfriendly (and their code example appears to be
a weird cross between HTML 3.2 and 4.01 - I wouldn't trust anything from
them).
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Rob McAninch]

John D. <news:Mk******************@bignews6.bellsouth.net> :

"brucie" <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message
news:2h************@uni-berlin.de...

Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di**@neopax.com> said:

> Is it possible to have one table somehow 'called' to appear
> on different pages?

http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Include_one_file_in_another

I haven't tried it, but was considering the same thing for a
navigation bar.
http://javascript.internet.com/navig...lti-page-navig
ation.html I might try this

As the allmyfaqs.com URL states, client support is required for
JavaScript. For primary navigation you should choose a method you
have better control over (e.g. SSI or pre-processing), client
scripting could be useful for a secondary navigation aid such as
a cookie crumb trail.

Perhaps
http://home.earthlink.net/~woogieoog.../cookiecrumbs/

--
Rob - http://rock13.com/
Web Stuff: http://rock13.com/webhelp/

[Neal]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:26:43 -0400, John D. <jo*****@excite.com> wrote:

"brucie" <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message
news:2h************@uni-berlin.de...

in post: <news:2h************@uni-berlin.de>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di**@neopax.com> said:

> Is it possible to have one table somehow 'called' to appear on

different

pages?

> I want something to appear on all pages, yet only want to (re)edit one

item.
I haven't tried it, but was considering the same thing for a navigation
bar.
http://javascript.internet.com/navig...avigation.html
I might try this

Javascript isn't wise for navigation, unless there are redundant text
links available.

And using SSI or PHP to include navigation - now I'm not terribly up on
either, but I'm somewhat sure that using these technologies you can only
insert a navigation section which allows all links to be clickable - in
other words, you can't shut off the current page's link, which is
preferrable for usability.

I'd love to be wrong about this, and I'd happily be proven wrong. I
suspect if I am I will be rather shortly! If I could include "smart
navigation" which shuts off the active page's link, I'd get right on that
ASAP myself.

[John D.]

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

John D. wrote:

I haven't tried it, but was considering the same thing for a navigation
bar.
http://javascript.internet.com/navig...avigation.html I might try this

I wouldn't its very Google unfriendly

I was curious about that.
In laymans terms:
Is it because all my pages will be linked to a link
as aposed to being directly linked to eachother?
Could you please elaborate on the "google unfreindly" statement.
share your wisdom with a new HTML guy.

Thanks
John D.

[Neal]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 13:43:18 -0400, John D. <jo*****@excite.com> wrote:

http://javascript.internet.com/navig...avigation.html

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

I wouldn't its very Google unfriendly

I was curious about that.
In laymans terms:
Is it because all my pages will be linked to a link
as aposed to being directly linked to eachother?
Could you please elaborate on the "google unfreindly" statement.
share your wisdom with a new HTML guy.

Basically, Google don't do Javascript. It cannot index your page unless
the links are proper HTML links.

[Brian]

John D. wrote:

http://javascript.internet.com/navig...avigation.html

Could you please elaborate on the "google unfreindly" statement.

The Googlebot (the spider that crawls the web and indexes pages) is
entirely javascript unaware. It will not parse or execute any js. If a
page is only available to users via js links, then the Googlebot will
never find it.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Neal wrote:

And using SSI or PHP to include navigation - now I'm not terribly up on
either, but I'm somewhat sure that using these technologies you can only
insert a navigation section which allows all links to be clickable - in
other words, you can't shut off the current page's link, which is
preferrable for usability.

I suspect your right about SSI includes: it merely inserts a file's
contents at some place in the document. (Not having used much SSI, I
cannot be certain of this.)

But this can be done with PHP, which is a full-fledged programming
language. One kludge: declare a variable $current for each page, e.g.,
$current="home". The nav would have an if (!$current == "home")
construct to put a link to the home page, or else put only the text
"home." No doubt someone has thought of something more graceful than
that -- perhaps by querying the request uri or the file name -- which
you'll find by searching the relevant news group's archives.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Mark Parnell]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 15:48:17 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.html:

No doubt someone has thought of something more graceful than
that

brucie had one a while ago - don't recall how he did it though.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[brucie]

in post: <news:1v******************************@40tude.ne t>
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> said:

No doubt someone has thought of something more graceful than
that

brucie had one a while ago
it went away after i used the cream
don't recall how he did it though.

thats ok, i don't recall doing it

--
b r u c i e

[brucie]

in post: <news:op**************@news.individual.net>
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> said:

If I could include "smart navigation" which shuts off the active
page's link,

i'm not sure thats such a good idea. nav needs to be consistent from
page to page so changing it on every page may be a bit
annoying/confusing, you'd have to be careful with the implementation.

also just because they're on the page doesn't mean they no longer want
the link. e.g. right-clicking with some browsers allows a few different
action to perform with the link, you cant do it with a dead link.
--
b r u c i e

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Neal scribbled in the mud:

And using SSI or PHP to include navigation - now I'm not terribly up
on either, but I'm somewhat sure that using these technologies you
can only insert a navigation section which allows all links to be
clickable - in other words, you can't shut off the current page's
link, which is preferrable for usability.

http://wipkip.biz/index.php

--
Duende
I'll never do that again.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 23 May 2004, Duende wrote:

http://wipkip.biz/index.php

And the cacheability engine says:

This object will be considered stale, because it doesn't have any
freshness information assigned. It doesn't have a validator present.
It doesn't have a Content-Length header present, so it can't be used
in a HTTP/1.0 persistent connection.

If the resource is genuinely dynamic, then that would be fine. But if
building the page dynamically from materials that have not changed, it
would be opportune to at least set an appropriate last-modified date
on the HTTP response.

[Brian]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

If the resource is genuinely dynamic, then that would be fine. But if
building the page dynamically from materials that have not changed, it
would be opportune to at least set an appropriate last-modified date
on the HTTP response.

A good start. But, imho, if you're going to dabble in php (or some other
page that interfere's with caching), you ought to go the full 9 yards
and parse the request headers for if-modified-since and if-none-match,
and return 304 as appropriate.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Neal]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 09:16:10 +1000, brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info>
wrote:

in post: <news:op**************@news.individual.net>
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> said:

If I could include "smart navigation" which shuts off the active
page's link,
i'm not sure thats such a good idea. nav needs to be consistent from
page to page so changing it on every page may be a bit
annoying/confusing, you'd have to be careful with the implementation.

The navigation maintains the same basic appearance. All that changes is
the fact that one item - representing the current location - is
highlighted and unlinked. We're not talking about scrambling the eggs. A
uniform appearance to the menu is maintained.
also just because they're on the page doesn't mean they no longer want
the link. e.g. right-clicking with some browsers allows a few different
action to perform with the link, you cant do it with a dead link.

Clicking on a link allows you to:

- follow the link - no need when you're on the page
- add the target to bookmarks, also easy to do when on the page
- save or print the target, also simple to do when on the page
- copy the link address, which is right in the address bar when on the page

What am I missing? What functionality is lost by disabling the link to the
current page?

[brucie]

in post: <news:op**************@news.individual.net>
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> said:

also just because they're on the page doesn't mean they no longer want
the link. e.g. right-clicking with some browsers allows a few different
action to perform with the link, you cant do it with a dead link.

Clicking on a link allows you to:
- follow the link - no need when you're on the page
you don't know that
- add the target to bookmarks, also easy to do when on the page
- save or print the target, also simple to do when on the page
- copy the link address, which is right in the address bar when on the page
it doesn't matter if the same functionality in available by other means.
it may not be how the visitor is used to doing it but now you've forced
them to use a method other than the one they usually use because you've
second guessed how the visitor uses their browser and killed off the
link.
What am I missing? What functionality is lost by disabling the link to the
current page?

a lot more. it depends on the UA.

--
b r u c i e

[Toby A Inkster]

Neal wrote:

And using SSI or PHP to include navigation - now I'm not terribly up on
either, but I'm somewhat sure that using these technologies you can only
insert a navigation section which allows all links to be clickable - in
other words, you can't shut off the current page's link, which is
preferrable for usability.

You would have difficulty doing that in SSI, but it's not hard in PHP:

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

[Neal]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 16:50:47 +1000, brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info>
wrote:

Clicking on a link allows you to:
- follow the link - no need when you're on the page

you don't know that

Sure I do. Where else will a navigation link bring you?

- add the target to bookmarks, also easy to do when on the page
- save or print the target, also simple to do when on the page
- copy the link address, which is right in the address bar when on the
page

it doesn't matter if the same functionality in available by other means.
it may not be how the visitor is used to doing it but now you've forced
them to use a method other than the one they usually use because you've
second guessed how the visitor uses their browser and killed off the
link.

Well, there's the argument that we should not remove functionality, and
there's the argument that we should account for users who don't know jack
shit about their browser or how to use it. Everything I've mentioned is
more logically possible, amd nore likely accomplished, on a current page
than on a link. I can't imagine that too many users have gotten accustomed
to doing things through a link and can't comprehend doing the same exact
things on the current page. In fact, I can't imagine any.

Maybe it's a problem with my imagination. But I think it's rather a
problem with yours.

What am I missing? What functionality is lost by disabling the link to
the
current page?

a lot more. it depends on the UA.

Enlighten me. What else can a right-click on a link do that cannot be
absolutely replicated on a current page??

[Mark Tranchant]

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Is it possible to have one table somehow 'called' to appear on different
pages?
I want something to appear on all pages, yet only want to (re)edit one
item.

I use PHP for this. The menus at http://tranchant.plus.com/ are
generated with one file per directory, and each "HTML" page calls a menu
function to draw the menus and define which are the active items for
highlighting.

--
Mark.

[brucie]

in post: <news:op**************@news.individual.net>
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> said:

Clicking on a link allows you to:
- follow the link - no need when you're on the page

you don't know that

Sure I do.
no you don't.
Where else will a navigation link bring you?
its not all about where a link takes you but what you can do with it.
for example right clicking on the current page link to open it in the
background to keep it for later while you continue to surf the site on
the page already open.
can't imagine that too many users have gotten accustomed to doing
things through a link and can't comprehend doing the same exact
things on the current page. In fact, I can't imagine any.
i don't use the address bar and cant imagine anyone using it to copy the
page address so i'll remove it from all my pages, after all you can get
a copy of the page address using other methods.

or perhaps i shouldn't assume everyone uses a browser the same way i do
and leave it alone.
Maybe it's a problem with my imagination.
yes
But I think it's rather a problem with yours.
my problem is i'm used to using my browser a certain way but now you've
killed off the current page link so i'm forced to use another unfamiliar
method (if one is available) to do whatever i wanted to do with the
link.
Enlighten me. What else can a right-click on a link do that cannot be
absolutely replicated on a current page??

it doesn't matter if you can do it by other means the visitor may not
know how to do it by other means.

--
b r u c i e

[Neal]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:36:26 +1000, brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info>
wrote:

or perhaps i shouldn't assume everyone uses a browser the same way i do
and leave it alone.
I'm not advocating messing with the browser. I'm not including a link to
the current page. That';s quite different.
my problem is i'm used to using my browser a certain way but now you've
killed off the current page link so i'm forced to use another unfamiliar
method (if one is available) to do whatever i wanted to do with the
link.

I've really just not included it. Do you advocate that every page should
have a link to itself? That's what seems to be your position. And I've
never seen that recommended by anyone - rather the opposite is normally
preferred. You ought to write a tutorial.

Enlighten me. What else can a right-click on a link do that cannot be
absolutely replicated on a current page??

it doesn't matter if you can do it by other means the visitor may not
know how to do it by other means.

Again, I cannot go to their home and teach them to use their computer,
their browser, or even the chair in which they sit. We must presuppose the
user has the knowledge to use their browser. Setting bookmarks, printing,
saving a file - all these are rather basic parts of computer literacy.

Do you complain when the waitress brings you a soda without a straw, as
some drinkers cannot drink without one?

[brucie]

in post: <news:op**************@news.individual.net>
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> said:

Do you complain when the waitress brings you a soda without a straw, as
some drinkers cannot drink without one?

no but i get really pissed off if it hasn't got a cute little umbrella.
doesn't everyone?

--
b r u c i e

[Brian]

brucie wrote:

its not all about where a link takes you but what you can do with it.
for example right clicking on the current page link to open it in
the background to keep it for later while you continue to surf the
site on the page already open.
We may be able to do additional things with a link in our favorite
browsers, but the primary purpose of a hyperlink has been to provide a
jumping off point to another web resource. I'd have to agree with Neal,
it makes no sense to provide a link in the current resource to itself.
And on a practical note, it might confuse true newcomers to the web.
my problem is i'm used to using my browser a certain way but now
you've killed off the current page link so i'm forced to use another
unfamiliar method (if one is available) to do whatever i wanted to do
with the link.

Your argument rests on the assumption that a link in a document to
itself is natural. I don't accept that assumption.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Mark Tranchant scribbled in the mud:

I use PHP for this. The menus at http://tranchant.plus.com/ are
generated with one file per directory, and each "HTML" page calls a menu
function to draw the menus and define which are the active items for
highlighting.

Would you be willing to share your PHP menu code with us lesser types?

--
Duende
I'll never do that again.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 23 May 2004, Brian wrote:

A good start. But, imho, if you're going to dabble in php (or some other
page that interfere's with caching), you ought to go the full 9 yards
and parse the request headers for if-modified-since and if-none-match,
and return 304 as appropriate.

It's a fine idea, but it sounds a lot of work. I'd prefer the
scripting system to handle this on my behalf, when I wanted it - e.g
via some kind of option setting.

Disclaimer: my detailed knowledge of PHP is rather minimal.

Alternatively, as I said before, maybe - when essentially "static"
pages are built from components - it would be better to do the
building behind the scenes, whenever the component(s) are changed (e.g
with a makefile and some kind of offline processor), and leave the
HTTPD to do what it already does extremely well - serving out static
pages in accordance with the rules of HTTP, with ETag and if-modified
support and all.

But in the end it's not up to me to choose - I'm just trying to coax
folks into keeping some semblance of cacheability when it's
appropriate.

cheers

[Brian]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2004, Brian wrote:

A good start. But, imho, if you're going to dabble in php (or some
other page that interfere's with caching), you ought to go the full
9 yards and parse the request headers for if-modified-since and
if-none-match, and return 304 as appropriate.
It's a fine idea, but it sounds a lot of work.

You're right about one thing: it's a lot of work. I spent a couple of
days on it last week, and thought I had it figured out, but I can't seem
to get it to send 304.
I'd prefer the scripting system to handle this on my behalf, when I
wanted it - e.g via some kind of option setting.

Disclaimer: my detailed knowledge of PHP is rather minimal.
I'm pretty new to it, but I don't think there's any option setting to
let it do it on its own, for the same reason that no such setting exists
with ssi: the php script has no way of knowing what the last-modified
date is.
maybe - when essentially "static" pages are built from components -
it would be better to do the building behind the scenes, whenever the
component(s) are changed (e.g with a makefile and some kind of
offline processor)

I think that is probably best, when possible. I've found offline
preprocessors woefully inadequate, though, so I don't know how practical
that advice is for authors.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Spartanicus]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

maybe - when essentially "static" pages are built from components -
it would be better to do the building behind the scenes, whenever the
component(s) are changed (e.g with a makefile and some kind of
offline processor)

I think that is probably best, when possible. I've found offline
preprocessors woefully inadequate, though, so I don't know how practical
that advice is for authors.

Preprocessors are useful for simple inclusions like a menu, a database
based authoring system is capable of much more than that.

--
Spartanicus

[Brian]

Spartanicus wrote:

Preprocessors are useful for simple inclusions like a menu, a database
based authoring system is capable of much more than that.

Of course. But I wonder how many php or asp based sites are querying a
db for their content, and how many are using scripting to generate menus
with conditional components, etc. I've been tempted to use php for
something like that, but the extra work of http scares me off.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Spartanicus]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Preprocessors are useful for simple inclusions like a menu, a database
based authoring system is capable of much more than that.

Of course. But I wonder how many php or asp based sites are querying a
db for their content

*offline* database

--
Spartanicus

[Brian]

Spartanicus wrote:

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

I wonder how many php or asp based sites are querying a db for
their content

*offline* database

right. ;-)

I used to use a relational database to generate playlists for a radio
program offline, then upload the new ones. Everything on the site was
static. Nice setup I had going.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Brian wrote:

brucie wrote:

its not all about where a link takes you but what you can do with it.
for example right clicking on the current page link to open it in the
background to keep it for later while you continue to surf the site on
the page already open.

We may be able to do additional things with a link in our favorite
browsers, but the primary purpose of a hyperlink has been to provide a
jumping off point to another web resource. I'd have to agree with Neal,
it makes no sense to provide a link in the current resource to itself.
And on a practical note, it might confuse true newcomers to the web.

my problem is i'm used to using my browser a certain way but now
you've killed off the current page link so i'm forced to use another
unfamiliar method (if one is available) to do whatever i wanted to do
with the link.

Your argument rests on the assumption that a link in a document to
itself is natural. I don't accept that assumption.

Well, jumping back in again, I wanted a simple *universally applicable* method
of having *one* nav table on all pages. It seems it cannot be done simply.
So, all I intend to do is an automated cut and paste from a text editor
(including a URL to the current page). It may or may not be 'natural' but it's
legal in all browsers.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 25 May 2004, Spartanicus wrote:

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

maybe - when essentially "static" pages are built from components -
it would be better to do the building behind the scenes, whenever the
component(s) are changed (e.g with a makefile and some kind of
offline processor)

I think that is probably best, when possible. I've found offline
preprocessors woefully inadequate, though, so I don't know how practical
that advice is for authors.

Preprocessors are useful for simple inclusions like a menu, a database
based authoring system is capable of much more than that.

I think you can take it that the other participants on this thread are
not unaware of that :-}

However, the issue here (AFAICS) is: if the same page is served out
many times (between updates of the actual content, I mean), will the
page be different every time, or not?

If not, then the page would be potentially cacheable: but, because of
the lack of ETag and content-length - and, in extreme cases, even of
last-modified date/time - the use of server-time dynamic page
construction has wrecked the potential cacheability.

If, on the other hand, the page content is changing minute by minute,
*and* users want and need the freshest version (e.g flight delays or
other genuinely time-sensitive pages) then, obviously, I'd have no
argument with the procedure.

disclaimer: I use "XBitHack full", while being aware that it's less
then ideal according to the arguments that I'm presenting here. If I
was starting again today, I might well decide against that - and one
of these days I'll probably break the habit.

[Spartanicus]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

Preprocessors are useful for simple inclusions like a menu, a database
based authoring system is capable of much more than that.

I think you can take it that the other participants on this thread are
not unaware of that :-}

What some don't seem to be aware of is that there is such a thing as an
offline (relational) database. They are very good at turning out static
cacheble pages based on templates whilst allowing much more complex
operations than a preprocessor (e.g. automatically generating
breadcrumbs trails).

--
Spartanicus

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 26 May 2004, Spartanicus wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

Preprocessors are useful for simple inclusions like a menu, a database
based authoring system is capable of much more than that.

I think you can take it that the other participants on this thread are
not unaware of that :-}

What some don't seem to be aware of is that there is such a thing as an
offline (relational) database. They are very good at turning out static
cacheble pages based on templates whilst allowing much more complex
operations than a preprocessor (e.g. automatically generating
breadcrumbs trails).

Sorry for the late response. You make a good point. If one is using
the database to compose a finite number of designed pages (rather than
to compose unforeseen pages on-the-fly in response to unpredictable
user requests), then composing them offline, and serving them out as
static, would indeed satisfy both sides of this particular argument.