Alternative to Server Side Include?

[Neil Here]

Is there any alternative way to put one file on a server and have it update
itself to everypage like SSI does? I am looking for a modern way? Is that my
only option. I am trying to keep things XHTML 1.1 Validated.

[Murray *TMM*]

SSI *is* the modern way.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
[url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
[url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.dwfaq.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Neil Here" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7d1$rqi$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Is there any alternative way to put one file on a server and have it
> update
> itself to everypage like SSI does? I am looking for a modern way? Is that
> my
> only option. I am trying to keep things XHTML 1.1 Validated.
>

[Murray *TMM*]

Why XHTML 1.1?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
[url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
[url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.dwfaq.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Neil Here" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:dtm7d1$rqi$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Is there any alternative way to put one file on a server and have it
> update
> itself to everypage like SSI does? I am looking for a modern way? Is that
> my
> only option. I am trying to keep things XHTML 1.1 Validated.
>

[Neil Here]

I would think it is better than XHTML 1.0. Is it not? What is the difference between that and 1.0 Strict? I would just figure a higher number would mean a newer version.

[Murray *TMM*]

I don't think so. It means a newer version, but since there is no browser
support for the new stuff in it, it's not worth using. Just stick with 1.0
until 2 is out in three years or so.... 8)

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
[url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
[url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.dwfaq.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Neil Here" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:dto5d7$mnq$1@forums.macromedia.com...

>I would think it is better than XHTML 1.0. Is it not? What is the
>difference between that and 1.0 Strict? I would just figure a higher number
>would mean a newer version.

[Neil Here]

Oh, well I will just keep it at that for now to keep it future proof for the
next year or so. IIf someone would like to give me some advice on my site
(besides cleaning up the css) I would love that. [url]http://members.cox.net/nvd92/4[/url]