As for trying to follow the HTML in an "include system", I don't have too much of a problem with it personally. Perhaps because there isn't much to my HTML, as I try to stick with a basic XHTML document layout that can be manipulated by CSS. In other words, I never really have to edit my HTML, except for the static text within when the need be.
Thanks for the info. I suppose I'll just stay with the includes for this round and if I know of a better way next time I do my "spring cleaning"--which probably won't have the coincidence of falling near spring again--I'll run with it.
- Rob Paxon
Tom Rogers wrote:
Hi,
On a busy site (where the milliseconds start to matter) the chances are that the operating system has your include files cached so the load time is probably not a factor. If you install some of the php token caching systems (zend and others) the speed is even better.
As to using header and footer includes I found that system really frustrating trying to follow the html. What I have switched to is templates where the site layout is a template and each php page generates the content and passes it one include file that does the final mix. this way my html developer has control over the html and can edit it as one file most of the time.
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
