Why .asp?

[dburdon]

I've just done some work a .asp website.

The site is driven by .asp. I managed to do a reworking in xhtml and got exactly the same output. The original use of .asp seems an unnecessary complication for a fairly simple site. For the sake of consistency I've retained the .asp format but can't work out why the site would have been designed in .asp in the first place. See Event two way radio hire.

Have I missed some hidden benefit of .asp?

[kgun]

I will foccus on these distinctions.

• Static (X)HTML pages. No need for server scripting lik asp or php.
• Static XML driven sites, like an XML CMS. No need for server scripting lik asp or php. XML driven sites can be great, since you can transform the same datasource (XML files) to different formats, HTML, PDF, WAP (for wireless applications), other XML formats like RSS and Atom etc. by using XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Transformation Language). That makes XML driven sites very flexible. These technologies can of course be combined with the technologies mentioned below. That is the future and what I call web-, internet- or net 2. I am sure some webmasters are already writing all their sites in XML and trasforming it to (X)HTML by using XLST if / when needed. Note, you can get problems with older browsers with XML driven sites depending on how you transform the source file(s).
• Dynamic sites based on browser scripting in JavaScript. No need for server scripting lik asp or php.
• Dynamic database driven sites. Then you need a server scripting language like asp or php.
• Web applications driven by an AJAX engine. Then you need to combine asynchronous (browser) JavaScript with serverscripting in asp, php or .NET

[kgun]

Originally Posted by dburdon

The original use of .asp seems an unnecessary complication for a fairly simple site.

Yes, it may be. Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

But sometimes you must prepare for future use. Then a database driven site may become a necessity.

Since you are working in the SEO business, I draw your attention to this thread:

Ajax Puts Web Ad Sales in Peril

[dburdon]

Kjell,

I'm not a programmer or web designer. But managed to construct a functioning xhtml version of the home page fairly quickly.

However, to retain the integrity of the site I reverted to using .asp. This mean't altering the main .asp index page code, a CSS style file, a .asp navigation file, a .asp header file and a .asp footer file.

To me the use of .asp was over-engineering.

[rwil02]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Kjell,

I'm not a programmer or web designer. But managed to construct a functioning xhtml version of the home page fairly quickly.

However, to retain the integrity of the site I reverted to using .asp. This mean't altering the main .asp index page code, a CSS style file, a .asp navigation file, a .asp header file and a .asp footer file.

To me the use of .asp was over-engineering.

You might consider that when you come to alter mypage1.asp and mypage2.asp, you have already altered the CSS file (required anyway I would imagine)
as well as the header, footer and navigation files
so all you have to worry about is the actual content section.

Hence from this description, I would pick they used ASP to take advantage of server side include files.

[dbramley]

Sometimes I build a fairly simply site in asp because somewhere down the line I know some database functions might be added such as a forum or shopping cart.

It would just save me a lot of work in the long run, all for the sake of a file extension.

[mikesmith76]

However, to retain the integrity of the site I reverted to using .asp. This mean't altering the main .asp index page code, a CSS style file, a .asp navigation file, a .asp header file and a .asp footer file.

To me the use of .asp was over-engineering.

Even with very simple sites I alsways make use of php includes as most of the "header" html will usually be the same across multiple files. It's always handy to have sites built like this for future proofing, as one poster has suggested already.

[DrTandem1]

I think the main reason for using ASP is so that a novice may be allowed to change the content without disrupting the design. Similar to SSI.

Say you have a large site that needs to be updated by many different departments. Not each department will have someone versed in web design. There may be so many updates, that even a full-time webmaster would not be able to maintain it. However, if each department is allowed access to their specific content, it can be updated by them.

[dburdon]

DR.T,MikeSmith,

I guess you're both right. I just found working in .asp a little more complex than usual.

[florabalance]

Some functions such as form handling and db connections require server side scripting and it is often useful to create dynamic pages based on user circumstances which is easily handled on the server side.

I just redid pages that were originally .asp/microsoft access with .php/mysql. The .php/mysql performed ten times better than .asp.. and were easier to implement. I have dropped .asp, it is yet another mediocre microsoft implementation.

Server side scripting has its place but I would look for other solutions than .asp.

[imvain2]

Originally Posted by florabalance

I just redid pages that were originally .asp/microsoft access with .php/mysql. The .php/mysql performed ten times better than .asp.. and were easier to implement. I have dropped .asp, it is yet another mediocre microsoft implementation.

Server side scripting has its place but I would look for other solutions than .asp.

I love ASP, but I hate access. Access is the real problem with your combos. We use ASP with mysql and it works great. We have built a search engine that currently holds over 13,000 records and a custom search algo. and it all works great.

But back to the original post, I would have to agree with other posters. Even though your site may not require server side programming (like DB access), when you have seperate header include files, it makes site wide changes so much easier and efficient.

Before, I got into the server side programming world (ie. CF, ASP, PHP etc..), I had a large website to make changes to and it was a nightmare, but now its a breeze.

I believe all new technologies at some point seemed to someone that they were just overkill. For that matter, XHTML to this day many people see it as overkill,

[dburdon]

Imvain2,

I agree with your remarks regarding the headers and footers. It means one change can simultaneously take place across many pages. Maybe I like the flexibility of working page by page for SEO purposes. Targeting each page for a separate set of words. But I can see your point and the advantages that .asp offers.

[imvain2]

In case of SEO, what I started awhile ago and it works great is, within my header include file, my header is actually within a function. And on each page, I simply pass that header a title tag and meta description and the function places the title tag and meta description in the correct locations.[/code]

[kgun]

Originally Posted by florabalance

I just redid pages that were originally .asp/microsoft access with .php/mysql. The .php/mysql performed ten times better than .asp.. and were easier to implement. I have dropped .asp, it is yet another mediocre microsoft implementation.

Server side scripting has its place but I would look for other solutions than .asp.

You can come to London City via many streets. For me PHP is good enough and there is a large and growing online community. I also have the impression that PHP is the fastest developing oop scripting language. The language is flexible, there are a lot of libraries and extensions.