|
These pages are edited with an editor, like
emacs.
The html is generated by hand. There are lots of tools that could
be used to help, but they all suffer from generating lots of
unwanted garbage, and getting a page to behave in a desired manner
requires more tedious editing than it does to just write it in the
first place. The unwanted garbage also makes pages bigger, cutting
into server quotas, increasing server side bandwidth costs,
and causing pages to take longer to download and render for the
end user. Does one get 10% for this? This page, at about 2.5 KB
would require over 60 KB using any of the unmentioned tools.
That's 2,400% overhead.
To get the navigation bar on the left to be consistent across
pages without huge amounts of replacation, server side includes
are used. Some experts have claimed that server side includes
are slow or insecure. It's likely that these claims are true
only under unusual circumstances. They might be slow if they
are turned on for all html pages. That is, the pages must be
examined by the server for include directives even though most
pages don't have any such directives. These pages use the .shtml
file name extension, and the server only processes includes for
files with this extension. The security concerns must be because
server side includes can execute code on the server. However,
the shtml files themselves are not generally writable by the end
user, so with reasonable care, security is not an issue. So, they
remain an issue if the administrator thinks that the shtml writer
is either incompetent or malicious. My ISP (Internet Service Provider)
allows them. I use them at home. I have seen ISPs that allow
arbitrary Perl code on the server,
but do not allow server side includes. What is it that they are thinking?
Perl is the
diesel powered Swiss Army Jackhammer
of solutions, with overhead that makes server side includes appear
to have the same overhead as normal static html pages, which
appears to be true by all other measures.
|