On Wed, 23 May 2001, Simon Budig <Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Christoph Rauch (christoph.rauch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > The current page displayed in lynx is "suboptimal".
Well, at least it is not too bad. It is still looking better in lynx
than http://gug.sunsite.dk/ and some other gimp-related pages. ;-)
[...skipped nice HTML trick...]
> > PHP has a advantage over passive html-pages. You can react on the user
> > immediately. Think of: You go to gimp.org in germany and see german
> > content. Same thing in GB or the US and you see it in english. PHP can be
> > made to react on the browsers language preferences.
> >
> > But perhaps we could configure Apache to do it too?
>
> Yes, this is possible with content negotiation.
And it is better, IMHO. Apache allows you to store several versions
of the page in different languages, and it will serve the most
appropriate one according to the user's language preferences. This
approach also has the advantage that if you want to get one page in a
different language than the one specified in your preferences, you
simply have to modify the URL (e.g. "index.fr.html" instead of
"index.html") without having to reconfigure your browser for a single
page.
As I mentioned in a previous message, static pages (generated once,
not at every request) can be cached, which is not always possible for
dynamic pages and definitely not possible if cookies are used. Static
pages are good for the user's browser as well as for large caching
proxies that speed up the downloads for many users. I am behind a
proxy that is used by several thousand users, so I can see the
difference...
-Raphael
P.S.: This has been surprisingly active discussion... Unfortunately,
I will probably be away from the 'net in the next 4 days, so do
not be surprised if you do not see more replies from me.
I hope that the other topics that were discussed before this
web site thread started will not be lost in the noise... Bye!
