Re: INCLUDE tag

Mike Meyer (mwm@contessa.phone.net)
Sun, 30 Apr 95 11:26:18 PST


Subject:  Re: INCLUDE tag
In-Reply-To: <m0s5U9J-0001e6C@squirrel.NL.net>
From: mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 95 11:26:18 PST
Message-Id: <19950430.7C645E8.A46A@contessa.phone.net>
To: www-html@www10.w3.org

> [Quoting Martian, on April 29 1995, 22:55, in "Re: INCLUDE tag"]
> > After all, don't forget that #include is part of the C *preprocessor*,
> > not the compiler.
> 
> Yes. That's why includes should be handled by the HTTP server (and do
> not really belong to HTML). The client should never notice that there
> has been something included.

There are two problems with making serverside includes mandatory:

1) So far, we've managed to avoid adding features that require parsing
at request time or parsing the entire file. This is a GOOD THING(tm),
and alternatives should be sought for anything that changes it.

2) There's already a feature for doing includes in HTML. I think
emacs-w3 implements it, but nothing I know of does.

	<mike