[thelist] Re: SSI disadvantages?

C Williams seahorse at inreach.com
Sat Nov 23 23:58:01 CST 2002

I used server side includes on a 150 plus page site for the navigation and
banner and other miscl items and it worked really well... It is nice to be
able to change links without having to upload the whole site or go through
every page and the slight slowdown on the server is minimized as once the
navigation is loaded into the cache..you hardly notice this, if at all.

The *only* thing I will say is you will need to stick with the .shtml
ending, even if you abandon the server side includes down the road.  On one
assignment, I ended up creating redirect pages for the old .htm and .html
pages, as I had previously submitted this site and it had been spidered and
indexed pretty well with the major search engines prior to using server side
includes...and you don't want to lose your audience. You can use an .htacess
to make the page look like .html if you are on an Apache server, but dont
know of any other workarounds.

ie. Go for it, but beware of the .html and .shtml endings if it is on an
existing site.

Chris W

> Message: 15
> From: "Roger Harness" <magic32 at jps.net>
> Subject: [thelist] SSI disadvantages?

> ARE there any serious disavantages to utilizing server side includes??
> I have a relatively small (30-ish pages, but growing!) 2-framed site for
> retail store, with a little less then 100 visitors a day.
> The main reason for frames was navigation utilization/modification. But
> various reasons, (mainly search engines and bookmarks), I'm redesigning
> site.
> I'd like to use SSI for my left navigation, my header, and maybe a footer.
> And for the record, SSI *is* enabled, and working fine.

> As always, TIA!
> -Roger Harness

More information about the thelist mailing list