61–70 of 294 posts
Anyone remembers .htaccess files from Apache? Good times.
Those would be quite nice, if web browsers were good HTTP clients. The user experience with basic auth is not so good. The dialogs give little way to customize and providing information for user. No support for logout or any form of password changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore. I've seen a lot of this particularly weird overloading of "static HTML" lately. Static HTML, or static webpage, is meant to describe the experience from the person who is trying to look at the page. It does not describe the experience of the dev. I don't think this has been the common meaning of "static page" for at least 10 years. From Wikipedia [0]: >…
The title says “static HTML page” not “static web page”. JavaScript is not HTML.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those would be quite nice, if web browsers were good HTTP clients. The user experience with basic auth is not so good. The dialogs give little way to customize and providing information for user. No support for logout or any form of password changes.
Isn't that sort of a feature? Customizable HTTP auth dialogs are a security liability, as they blur the line between content and browser.
If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore. I've seen a lot of this particularly weird overloading of "static HTML" lately. Static HTML, or static webpage, is meant to describe the experience from the person who is trying to look at the page. It does not describe the experience of the dev. Using a dynamic script or application to generate a static html page that requires no JS execution is a static…
> If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore I understand static pages as files sent to a browser without having to be generated server-side.
If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore. I've seen a lot of this particularly weird overloading of "static HTML" lately. Static HTML, or static webpage, is meant to describe the experience from the person who is trying to look at the page. It does not describe the experience of the dev. Using a dynamic script or application to generate a static html page that requires no JS execution is a static…
This is nonsense semantics. Words and phrases change meaning over time.
As far back as I remember (and I played with JavaScript when it was first introduced in beta for Netscape), a “static web page server” always meant that there was no backend server generating pages on the fly.
Or... http authentication.
You can email or hand out physical copies on usb would be one use case where server auth can't compete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol no. If you HTML is generated, it's by definition not static anymore. Otherwise, all of the React server side rendering is static HTML.
No, because React is dynamically generating the HTML on the fly. If you pre-compile the HTML using something like Jekyll, so that the webserver is just serving HTML files without any dynamic/on-the-fly processing at request time, then it's considered static.
React on the client side: static, as you still got the same files served, how they dynamically alter the page runtime doesn't count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out when you give up the work of hosting your up stuff, you also give up some of the benefits from doing so.
Which is why a project that returns some of those benefits is genuinely cool and useful.
If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore. I've seen a lot of this particularly weird overloading of "static HTML" lately. Static HTML, or static webpage, is meant to describe the experience from the person who is trying to look at the page. It does not describe the experience of the dev. Using a dynamic script or application to generate a static html page that requires no JS execution is a static…