[thelist] Advisablitity of SSI

Pete Prodoehl pete.prodoehl at cygnusinteractive.com
Fri Sep 19 14:48:26 CDT 2003

I use SSI on almost every site I build.

I use Apache, and prefer .html for all of my files.

I create an .htaccess file like so:

Options +Includes +ExecCGI
AddType text/html .html
AddHandler server-parsed .html

If I do any CGI related things, I tend to use HTML-Template, which has 
it's own includes, which differ in syntax, but do basically the same 
thing: <!-- TMPL_INCLUDE NAME="footer.html" -->

If you're includes are mainly pulling in static files, I don't think 
you'll see much affect on server performance. If you are calling cgi's 
via SSI, then it might be an issue, but then you're going to have the 
same concerns any dynamic system might have.


John.Brooking at NA.SAPPI.COM wrote:
>    In your experiences, what are some guiding principles for deciding when
> to use Server-Side Includes to include common sections over multiple pages?
> As a programmer, it is very attractive to only maintain a common element
> such as a navigation bar in just one location, but I don't see it used as
> often as I would expect, especially in combination with CSS. (At least by
> looking for the .shtml extension, which I know is not always required.) On
> most of my sites, and even on subsites of larger ones, I can imagine having
> all sections but the primary content area be included this way. On the other
> hand, I know SSI is frowned on in some circles as placing more burden on the
> web server. (But why - isn't it just another request like a graphic or
> external CSS file? Or is there more to it than that?)

More information about the thelist mailing list