<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Javascript] How can search engines see a js include for navi gation?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
In short the answer is...Yes it can<BR>
Carl<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<B>From: </B> "josh@urbicon.com" <josh@urbicon.com><BR>
<B>Reply-To: </B>javascript@LaTech.edu<BR>
<B>Date: </B>Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:45:47 +0100<BR>
<B>To: </B> <javascript@LaTech.edu><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [Javascript] How can search engines see a js include for navi gation?<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, so I'm getting the sense that it is not possible to do a Javascript include for navigation that will also be understandable by a "user agent" (i.e. the search engine can't follow the links)<BR>
<BR>
Next question: can a user agent follow the links within navigation code placed in an SSI? I'm not so familiar with SSI. Resources on implementing this if it does in fact work?<BR>
<BR>
- josh draper<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
on 22-03-02 19.39, Filipiak, Bob (Contractor) at filipiab@atsc.army.mil wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">Sorry.... I do the includes server side so the <NOSCRIPT> getssent to the browser.</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">If you have to worry about lynx and other non-scripting browsers then jsut do every thing important server side and only use client side JavaScript for cosmetic stuff that doesn't matter wherethere the visitor sees it or not. <BR>
</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">It's been fun....so long!</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">Bob Filipiak</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">(Contractor)</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:hassan@webtuitive.com]</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:12 PM</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">To: javascript@LaTech.edu</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">Subject: Re: [Javascript] How can search engines see a js include for</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">navigation?</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> "Filipiak, Bob (Contractor)" wrote:</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> <BR>
> AFAIK Even if the browser has JavaScript disabled the code still downloads.</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">OK, that didn't seem logical -- what would be the point? -- so I <BR>
tested it. <BR>
</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">Neither Moz0.9.7/Win nor IE5.5/Win with scripting off display the</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2"><noscript> content from an external *.js file.</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">And more relevant to the question -- re' /search engines/ following</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">JS menu links -- Lynx doesn't see the <noscript> content either ... <BR>
</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">So I'd bet there's a high probability that most search engines do</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">/not/ follow external JS references ...</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> If the term "include" is being used as in</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> <BR>
> <script type="text/javascript" src="mystuff.js"></script></FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> <BR>
> rather than a server-scripting-based include --</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> <BR>
> Why would a user agent that doesn't understand JavaScript follow a</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">> script source link to a file that has <noscript> tags in it? :-)</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2">FWIW!</FONT> <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>