bobwill wrote:Also the answer from "jgillet", " As for me, when my sites start getting 'deep' I use includes for the calls, so it makes no difference. ", is a perfect example of what I am talking about. What the heck is an "includes". I have a hunch, but give an example. Techies just assume everyone else understands, because it is such a "simple" thing.
All ya had to do was ask
OTOH, an include is a pretty standard item in HTML coding, and its function should be known. It is not
"techie". Why no example? For that very reason, and the fact that the syntax is slightly different depending on the particular language you're using - HTML, CFML, PHP, etc.
We have to assume some level of knowledge here. To answer every question in step by step detail would not only be a giant waste of time (in most cases), but waste of server space as well. Again, if an answer is not understood, just ask.
bobwill wrote:Don't force me to change all my "htm" because some folks cannot understand the "scriptpath" variable.
You forget, we're still working with a beta system here. Changes will
happen in such an environment. If that's not acceptable then simply wait for the final release.
I disagree. The problem, IMHO, is that folks don't bother to read
what has been posted. The docs explain it, and in the versions that still contained it, Andy had very clear notes in the code just below the scriptpath variable. They clearly stated both a leading and closing / was required. All the questions I dealt with involved incorrect paths because folks did not bother to read that. We saw everything except
Why was it explained in many different places? Because folks asked the same question over and over in many different places, rather than use the excellent Search feature built into the Forum.