Re: Transclusion

Gavin, that was what Tim Bray wrote.

From w3c-sgml-wg-request@www10.w3.org Mon Dec 23 05:54 PST 1996
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:45:59 -0500
From: gtn@ebt.com (Gavin Nicol)
To: tbray@textuality.com
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Subject: Re: Transclusion

At 10:15 AM 12/21/96 -0800, Terry Allen wrote:
>Don't want to be pedantic, but this after all is a discussion of hypermedia
>so we should get our terms straight.  I *think* transclusion means inclusion, 
>not just of another document, but of an arbitrary segment of another document, 
>in Nelson's scheme all done by byte offset, but the key point is you're 
>pulling in a piece of something else.  I think what the web does now with 
><img> and <frame> is inclusion rather than transclusion.

Nah. HTTP 1.1, and some HTTP 1.0 servers already allow sub-document
addressing (mostly byte-range, but DynaWeb does structural chunking).  
Nothing in the WWW stops true transclusion at all.