- From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:01:30 EDT
- To: Ryan_Tomayko@stercomm.com
- CC: www-forms@w3.org, xforms@yahoogroups.com
- Message-ID: <3c.236cc20d.2aa0724a@aol.com>
In a message dated 30/08/2002 04:11:13 GMT Daylight Time, Ryan_Tomayko@stercomm.com writes: > The reason I haven't posted my concern to the www-forms-editor list is > because XInclude will do the job today. > > > <head> > <xi:include src="shared-model.xml"/> > </head> Ryan, I guess you mean <xi:include href="shared-model.xml"/> But doesn't XInclude (at least at the current stage of development of the XForms WD) potentially make things worse? If I am trying to write an XForms-using application to be processed client-side independent of platform how will I be able to know whether the user agent/browser is or is not XInclude-capable? If I can't detect that then how can I know whether all-in-one.svg should be sent or shared-model.xml plus form-controls.xml should be sent to be XIncluded by the receiving client application? So, if there are XInclude-capable and XInclude-incapable XForms-using browsers out there don't I have to create and maintain a single platform all-in-one document plus XInclude-capable versions? If that's the case then doesn't the maintenance burden become even worse? I can see that using XInclude may help IF you are sure that the user agent is XInclude capable. This again brings us back to the question of how generic (or non-generic) a proposed solution the current WD of XForms is. Andrew Watt
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 03:02:04 UTC