Re: Xssi used by others

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Howard Fear wrote:
> > FWIW, I think things like the xSSI extensions should be as public
> > as possible.  It makes life much easier for web page developers -
> > not to mention HTML-how to authors.  I can't speak for anyone else
> > who's worked on mod_include, but I wouldn't object if Netscape and/or
> > Microsoft implemented the same commands in their servers.  Still
> > won't make them as good as Apache ;-)
> 
> We *really* need a standard HTML template mechanism.  Every server application
> tool out there, from FireFly to iCat to IIS, has done their own, and it's sheer
> headaches for content developers.  

We've access to a lot of good options between PHP, XSSI, mod_perl 
etc. What is really needed, IMHO, is a gui tool to deal with both 
this and our config stuff. The config issue seems to be the only 
problem that the reviewers can find with us. (Which IMO text based 
is much preferable)


> 	Brian
> 
> --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
> brian@organic.com  www.apache.org  hyperreal.com  http://www.organic.com/JOBS

Re: Xssi used by others

[Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@lerdorf.on.ca>]

> > On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Howard Fear wrote:
> > > FWIW, I think things like the xSSI extensions should be as public
> > > as possible.  It makes life much easier for web page developers -
> > > not to mention HTML-how to authors.  I can't speak for anyone else
> > > who's worked on mod_include, but I wouldn't object if Netscape and/or
> > > Microsoft implemented the same commands in their servers.  Still
> > > won't make them as good as Apache ;-)
> > 
> > We *really* need a standard HTML template mechanism.  Every server application
> > tool out there, from FireFly to iCat to IIS, has done their own, and it's sheer
> > headaches for content developers.  
> 
> We've access to a lot of good options between PHP, XSSI, mod_perl 
> etc. What is really needed, IMHO, is a gui tool to deal with both 
> this and our config stuff. The config issue seems to be the only 
> problem that the reviewers can find with us. (Which IMO text based 
> is much preferable)

A standard HTML template mechanism is never going to be accepted by
anybody anyway.  All the standards bodies in the world can scream until
they are blue in the face and Netscape will plod right along with LiveWire
and Server-Side Java while Microsoft will keep pushing Active Server
(ASP).  It is not in their best interest to make the web-server invisible
to the content developer.  They want to lock you in so once you develop a
solution in either environment, you are forced to use that server from
then on.

-Rasmus