includeHTML vs PPWizard

1) PPWizard *substitutes* HTML code for special tags, so you have 2
files for each page: the "before" and "after" files. To see a display
of the final form, one must view the "after" file. To re-edit, one
must switch back to the "before" file, make a change, run it through
PPWizard again (outside of HTML-Kit), and view the new "after" file.

includeHTML substitutes code between special tags, and *retains* those
tags. So, one needs to edit only one file (creating new versions), and
that file can always be displayed in final form. Thus, re-editing is
easier with includeHTML.

2) The "after" file generated by PPWizard shows no evidence of
pre-processor tags. I am the volunteer webmaster for a small
non-profit group http://www.catsociety.org. If I get "hit by a bus,"
another volunteer who may not have the time/experience/desire to learn
the pre-processor would find it easier to pick up and run with the
files generated by PPWizard.

Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

I have been using HTML-Kit as my editor. I have been using PPWizard
pre-processor to insert common blocks of HTML. I am considering
switching to includeHTML as my pre-processor. My impression of the
pros and cons is as follows:

1) PPWizard *substitutes* HTML code for special tags, so you have 2
files for each page: the "before" and "after" files. To see a display
of the final form, one must view the "after" file. To re-edit, one
must switch back to the "before" file, make a change, run it through
PPWizard again (outside of HTML-Kit), and view the new "after" file.

includeHTML substitutes code between special tags, and *retains* those
tags. So, one needs to edit only one file (creating new versions), and
that file can always be displayed in final form. Thus, re-editing is
easier with includeHTML.

2) The "after" file generated by PPWizard shows no evidence of
pre-processor tags. I am the volunteer webmaster for a small
non-profit group http://www.catsociety.org. If I get "hit by a bus,"
another volunteer who may not have the time/experience/desire to learn
the pre-processor would find it easier to pick up and run with the
files generated by PPWizard.

Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

Thanks,
Teffy

.........[snipped] ...................
Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

Do I have a correct view of how these two very cool, free,
pre-processors compare? What important points am I missing?

In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of WG**********@spammotel.com (Teffy) wrote:

Any preprocessor that relies on special tags that are not defined
in HTML *must* ensure they are not served up to browsers. From your
post it's clear that PPWizard gets that right, and likely that
includeHTML screws it up.

I say "likely", because there is an ugly but legitimate hack that
gets round the problem: namely embedding preprocessor instructions in
<!-- html comments -->. This is of course best known in SSI, and if
that's what includeHTML is leaving behind you're OK.