Just simply having the ability to include files so you write the code once and are done. I'm surprised how long it took for HTML to get an include ability. It's also good for security--rather than testing 100 files with the same code, you test once and are done. No little typos sneaking in to page 23 of 100.
I'm surprised at how even now some browsers work and others don't. If you're not using a supported browser, good luck with the Internet. Valid markup? Consistent behavior? It's amazing the Internet works at all sometimes.
over the CSS style. It just "works" and looks solid on every browser. Being Perl based, it also is cool that you can just include the side menu, top header, and footer on each dynamic page. When I had the static site set up at the time, I had each of those copy & pasted into each HTML file which... more
I think that's one of the most powerful tools- Puckdropper,Wed Nov 09 2022 4:40am
I thought it was just stuff in the header like css and such but not actual page content. Yeah, I thought maybe once IE was gone things would be better but it seems like there's still fights between browsers rendering stuff correctly.
It's like <!--include "file"--> which is a HTML comment. I guess there's another way to do it, as duckduckgo is showing me other options rather than the method I was learning. The tricky thing is to always send your headers first. With includes it's easy to get the body sent before the header... more
I'll have to check in the DB what that post actually said. :) Edit: Fixed the message. Looks like because we have HTML enabled, the comment code was allowed. It was also missing a "-" in the closing bracket so it just commented out the rest of the page.