Re: Richer & richer semantics?
Subject: Re: Richer & richer semantics?
From: papresco <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:13:34 -0500
From email@example.com Tue Dec 24 06: 13:55 1996
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org (Unverified)
At 09:08 AM 12/23/96 -0500, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>>If involuntary transclusion is not done on the client side it can be done on
>>the server side. On the current Web, the alternative is to download other
>>people's data. On a future web, the web server will probably do server-side
>>transclusion *for you*.
>I do not see the distinction between client-side and server-side
>here... I would say the future really lies in peer-to-peer
What I meant to say is that if we leave transclusion and inclusion out of
XML in order to avoid copyright violations, server vendors will implement
proprietary transclusion tags and do the transclusion on the server side.
Since we can't really restrict it we might as well make it convenient for
those with legitimate uses.