includeHTML vs PPWizard

**Hywel Jenkins** · Jul 20 '05, 04:17 PM

Re: includeHTML vs PPWizard

In article <49920a43.03101 52142.74e43fcb@ posting.google. com>,
WGSGNUAYHTTE@sp ammotel.com says...[color=blue]
> 1) PPWizard *substitutes* HTML code for special tags, so you have 2
> files for each page: the "before" and "after" files. To see a display
> of the final form, one must view the "after" file. To re-edit, one
> must switch back to the "before" file, make a change, run it through
> PPWizard again (outside of HTML-Kit), and view the new "after" file.
>
> includeHTML substitutes code between special tags, and *retains* those
> tags. So, one needs to edit only one file (creating new versions), and
> that file can always be displayed in final form. Thus, re-editing is
> easier with includeHTML.
>
> 2) The "after" file generated by PPWizard shows no evidence of
> pre-processor tags. I am the volunteer webmaster for a small
> non-profit group http://www.catsociety.org. If I get "hit by a bus,"
> another volunteer who may not have the time/experience/desire to learn
> the pre-processor would find it easier to pick up and run with the
> files generated by PPWizard.
>
> Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
> pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?[/color]

Either write some documentation for the process you go through now, or
switch to SSI.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche

Hywel Jenkins, Photographer

http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/

404 Not Found

http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

**Teffy Smith** · Jul 20 '05, 04:17 PM

Re: includeHTML vs PPWizard

I almost forgot:

3) I think you cannot execute logic with includeHTML. With PPWizard,
the page navigation links included are different depending on which page
is being generated. Or, maybe there is a better way to do something
similar? http://www.catsociety.org

Teffy

Teffy wrote:[color=blue]
> I have been using HTML-Kit as my editor. I have been using PPWizard
> pre-processor to insert common blocks of HTML. I am considering
> switching to includeHTML as my pre-processor. My impression of the
> pros and cons is as follows:
>
> 1) PPWizard *substitutes* HTML code for special tags, so you have 2
> files for each page: the "before" and "after" files. To see a display
> of the final form, one must view the "after" file. To re-edit, one
> must switch back to the "before" file, make a change, run it through
> PPWizard again (outside of HTML-Kit), and view the new "after" file.
>
> includeHTML substitutes code between special tags, and *retains* those
> tags. So, one needs to edit only one file (creating new versions), and
> that file can always be displayed in final form. Thus, re-editing is
> easier with includeHTML.
>
> 2) The "after" file generated by PPWizard shows no evidence of
> pre-processor tags. I am the volunteer webmaster for a small
> non-profit group http://www.catsociety.org. If I get "hit by a bus,"
> another volunteer who may not have the time/experience/desire to learn
> the pre-processor would find it easier to pick up and run with the
> files generated by PPWizard.
>
> Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
> pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?
>
> Thanks,
> Teffy[/color]

m · Jul 20 '05, 04:17 PM

Re: includeHTML vs PPWizard

Teffy wrote:[color=blue]
> .........[snipped] ............... ....
> Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
> pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?[/color]

You can actually learn enough Perl to write your own
quick-and-dirty preprocessor in no time, and you'd be
doing yourself the great favor of learning a web
programming language.

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
....via Tux and Ice: 0% GatesBloat.

**Nick Kew** · Jul 20 '05, 04:17 PM

Re: includeHTML vs PPWizard

In article <49920a43.03101 52142.74e43fcb@ posting.google. com>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of WGSGNUAYHTTE@sp ammotel.com (Teffy) wrote:
[color=blue]
> Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
> pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?[/color]

I've no idea - I haven't used them. But your account of them looks
too coherent to be nonsense, so I'll take it as accurate. I make no
comment on whether either of them generate "sane" HTML beyond the
scope of your specific question.

Any preprocessor that relies on special tags that are not defined
in HTML *must* ensure they are not served up to browsers. From your
post it's clear that PPWizard gets that right, and likely that
includeHTML screws it up.

I say "likely", because there is an ugly but legitimate hack that
gets round the problem: namely embedding preprocessor instructions in
. This is of course best known in SSI, and if
that's what includeHTML is leaving behind you're OK.

SGML or XML offer more robust solutions to this. But you can't present
them to todays web browsers without a lot more work, and a more
sophisticated publishing framework such as mod_xmlns or XSLT.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

**Teffy Smith** · Jul 20 '05, 04:18 PM

Re: includeHTML vs PPWizard

Nick Kew wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <49920a43.03101 52142.74e43fcb@ posting.google. com>, one of infinite monkeys
> at the keyboard of WGSGNUAYHTTE@sp ammotel.com (Teffy) wrote:
>
> Any preprocessor that relies on special tags that are not defined
> in HTML *must* ensure they are not served up to browsers. From your
> post it's clear that PPWizard gets that right, and likely that
> includeHTML screws it up.
>
> I say "likely", because there is an ugly but legitimate hack that
> gets round the problem: namely embedding preprocessor instructions in
> . This is of course best known in SSI, and if
> that's what includeHTML is leaving behind you're OK.[/color]

Comments are what it leaves behind. Thanks for your thoughts.

Teffy