>
So that any user agent which can not or will not deal with JavaScript (like,
say, GoogleBot) will see no menu at all?
Well, if I simply do the html template, and then 20 pages, imagine what
it's going to take to modify something general on the site. Also, see below.
The best option for including content in multiple pages is some form of HTML
Preprocessor. This will do the same job as a server side script, but is run
on the development machine and outputs static documents which can be
uploaded to the webserver.
The problem here also is that I'm simply developing the site (I'm a
work-study), and after I'm gone people, who are not exactly involved
with web programming, are going to maintain it. If I left them with html
code that needs to be modified every time something is going to be
changed, it would create more headache for them, then it is now - now
they can simply modify anything by adding/deleting/modifting a
definition of a function call in a separate JS file, and then using
dreamweaver to modify content. If it was me who would've been doing that
and I had a hosting account, I would've gone with server-side script :)
As for the preprocessors, I'm not so sure they would go with that - it
probably costs and they will have to train people to use it, whereas I
figure they already know how to use dreamweaver (I was told that's what
they will use). So.. The question remains.. :) Besides, from my point of
view, very small number of people don't have JS, and a some more have it
disabled, and rather much more have the browser prompt them :)
It just kind of pisses me off, because there are no statements that can
be hardful in the script, and IE should really look for those that can
be. I mean, if I change the .innerHTML property/etc that's not going to
do anything harmful. And - it does show the message even if it's an
*empty* script tag! ;<>
Lüph