Template's with Asp.Net Ok but how about pure HTML

[zampik]

Hi Everyone,
I have a good website idea that I want to implement, and I would like to keep it pretty simple (pure HTML/CSS). Although, I don't know how I can make it maintaible so that I wouldn't have to copy and paste my navigation panel code or maybe some other things over and over for each of my content pages.
I can do it with Asp.Net user controls(templates) pretty easily, but I wasn't sure about whether just pure HTML/CSS combination would do it? ANy ideas?
Would there be any difference in terms of SEO, whether the pages have an .aspx extension or .html?

[Don_Hoagie]

If you want to make global changes to presentation, it can often be done in a CSS file. But if you want to make global changes to content, then yes, the only way to do that is to use server includes.

Assuming your idea of "maintenance" means adding/changing content, like creating a new navigation item, you'll have to go server-side. The only global changes you can incite through client-side code are presentational, i.e. color of the navigation menu, spacing between items, etc.

[zampik]

Thank you Don_Hoagie

Correct. I meant adding the Menu items to each page and all that. I was wondering if there was an easy way to do it with just 1 line of code rather than having to add my table for the navigation panel for example, each time to every one of my pages.
I guess I will stick with asp.net.
So any ideas about whether .aspx extension on my pages would effect my SEO? Is .html better?

[httpwebwitch]

SSI (server-side includes) come in many flavours, and they can be enabled even without .NET support. It is the best solution by far.

If your ISP doesn't support SSI, another strategy is to build a dynamic site with a scripting language that supports SSI, on your localhost. Then "download" the whole site as flat HTML files using a tool like HTtrack. Then you upload the HTML files to your server.

That method that worked for me when I was hosting a site on a free server with no SSI support, but I wanted to use SSI to build the site. It's a high-maintenance solution, but enabled me to build a 1000 page site and host it where SSI wasn't available.

[httpwebwitch]

the aspx extension will NOT affect SEO. ASPX, HTM, PHP, ASP, HTML... they are all indexed equally. Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

Those who choose to rewrite their extensions to HTM or HTML do so for portability reasons, in case they ever have to switch from ASP.NET to a PHP service without worrying about having their pages re-indexed or redirected to a new extension.

Some people like using HTM because it makes them feel more comfortable. Those are the same people who don't let their food touch on the plate, and who always tap their toothbrush exactly six times on the sink before brushing.

[webjourneyman]

I´m on the other side, I know a little about html, css and ssi but have been convinced that asp.net is the way to go. I worry some that sides designed in asp.net might be heavier to load and less spider friendly thatn puritanical xml. Any thought´s on that?
As to your question I can only second that ssi seems to be what you´re looking for, if asp.net is to close to the evil empire (microsoft) for yoru comfort.

[httpwebwitch]

sides designed in asp.net might be heavier to load and less spider friendly thatn puritanical xml. Any thought´s on that?

Yes.

ASP.NET pages can be truly gargantuan if you let it use that Postback ViewState thing. If you turn Viewstate off and use sane methods of session and state control then your ASP.NET pages will be lean and spider friendly.

[aspdaddy]

Why not develop in ASP locally and publish in pure HTML, then you get all the benefits of includes still.

[BradleyT]

Zampik if you switch to asp.net 2.0 you can put your navigation menu in a master page and each page will automatically get any changes you make. If you want to stick with 1.1 then using a user control is the most practical way.

And as far as SEO goes, go to google and type in site:www.microsoft.com +.aspx