Proper web design protocols

Mixing .asp and .html pages.

[Mechaworx]

Hi All,

I have been discussing with another newbie web designer the proper protocols to consider when designing a new web site.

Me:

I have been trying to design my web site (ASP VB Script) to be Xhtml compliant and I also have .asp and .html pages. The .html pages are basically help files that a user calls upon whenever he get's stuck while filling out a form, how to use the control panel etc.

I feel it doesn't matter whether or not I have .asp and .html pages mixed together.

Him:

He feels that the way his web site is designed (Information site about toys) and being that when designing a web site to be xhtml compliant is a bit redundant considering that XHTML compliance is basically for people using hand-held wireless devices like phones etc and he feels his site is too broad and extensive for hand-held devices.

He does however feel that I should be consistent in my web design and have all .asp pages.

I'm interested in hearing other's thoughts on this matter.
Thanks
Gerry

[defanjos]

Go with all .asp pages and use includes extensively - this will make your life a lot easier when updating the site, plus it will give the site an uniform look.

[Mechaworx]

Go with all .asp pages and use includes extensively

defanjos,

Well, my site is designed so that whenever information is input into or requested from the database, the pages are made in .asp. Since the help files I created do not rely on information from the database, that's why I made those in .html. When you mentioned using includes extensively you mean Server Side Includes?

Sorry if that is a stupid question. :P

Gerry

[defanjos]

When you mentioned using includes extensively you mean Server Side Includes?

Yes, even in pages that do not pull info from a db, it is a good idea to keep the header, footer and navigation as SSIs to make maintenance and updating easy. Of course, you can use includes in other areas of the page as well.

[Mechaworx]

I actually use Dreamweaver MX as a web development tool. They have what's called "libary items" where headers, footers and navigation that appear on every page of a site can be edited and updated using the software and all pages that contain the <!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/mylibrary_file.lbi" --><!-- #EndLibraryItem --> tags are used.

However, I do see your point and thanks for the info.

Gerry

[BlobFisk]

Whichever you go for, try to avoid changing it afterwords. Sticky URI's are very important, as people may have bookedmarked an html page, which you subsequently change to an asp page, and they get a 404.

My advice would be to go all ASP - this give your the freedom to add some server side stuff to a static page in the future.

HTH

[g1smd]

The dreamweaver method assembles all the fragments into pages before you upload it all to the server, so it takes more space on the server, but takes less processing power to serve. It also requires the whole site to be "recompiled" and uploaded even if only something minor is changed.

The 'ASP includes' only require one copy of the included information to be uploaded to the server. The pages are assembled by the server each time they are served. This uses more processing power, but allows you to edit one small piece and only have to upload the parts that were changed and nothing else.

[davegerard]

It may be my own opinion here, but I think that if you have some non-dynamic pages you may want to consider leaving them as straight HTML until you decide to make them dynamic. It can reduce the load on your server just a bit since the server doesn't have to search those documents for special code.

If I have a page that contains just an image (like a banner or something) that I use all over my site, why would I want to save it as an ASP page? There is no code and there is no point.

However, those HTML files can always be used as Server Side Includes in your ASP pages, like the banner file I mentioned.