I would call any server side or client side code which alters the HTML non-static. A static HTML page is just an HTML file which is stored on the server and displayed as-is in the browser.
> You can use Amazon S3 to host a static website. On a static website, individual webpages include static content. They might also contain client-side scripts.
By contrast, a dynamic website relies on server-side processing, including server-side scripts, such as PHP, JSP, or ASP.NET. Amazon S3 does not support server-side scripting, but AWS has other resources for hosting dynamic websites. To learn more about website hosting on AWS, see Web Hosting.
Naturally Amazon doesn't care about client site code, as they are not in the browser business. But JavaScript is in fact typically called "dynamic" content. Insofar it is not static.
Exactly. I don't know where the confusion is, but I'm saying that it doesn't matter how the page is generated. It is sent to the website visitor as just HTML. When the user views it it is all there, just html. No changes.
For example, I have a perl script that generates a set of .html files every night to show new additions to my library. They are static .html files on disk and never modified before the user views them. Just because a perl script (not connected to the web server in any way) made it does not "taint" the HTML so it is not static. The program, or the person, that wrote the HTML does not matter. All that matters is that it's just static unchanging HTML.
Everyone is allowed to give their own meaning to words, but you can't expect to just change a widely agreed meaning to match it. "Static" means it is just a set of files. Not that the page is stationary. Do you think that a blink tag in a HTML page makes it non-static? A hover effect? An :after pseudoelement in CSS?
If your perl script is saving the HTML to the disk, then yeah, your website is static. If it's generating HTML on the fly, it's dynamic. That's the widely agreed upon meaning, and that's it.
