Gavin, that was what Tim Bray wrote.
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Dec 23 05:54 PST 1996
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:45:59 -0500
From: email@example.com (Gavin Nicol)
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.