Re: inline HTML

Albert Lunde (
Sat, 20 May 1995 22:37:40 -0500 (CDT)

Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: inline HTML
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 22:37:40 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:  <9505202219.aa26013@dali.scocan.sco.COM> from "Murray Maloney" at May 20, 95 10:29:34 pm
From: (Albert Lunde)

> Quinn writes:
> > Is there any chance for a tag allowing inline HTML?  I'm really sick
> >  of having to cut out and paste in entire blocks of markup whenever
> >  they need updated.
> > 
> > It would be much nice if we could do something like:
> > 
> > 	<INC src="copyright.html">
> > 
> > At the bottom of every page, instead of having to copy that full
> >  copyright.html into EVERY FILE that needs it.
> > 
> > It really seems crazy to me why this isn't included in HTML.  We
> >  have inline images.  Why not inline HTML?  It will push towards
> >  more modular and distributed HTML coding.
> > 
> > Someone who matters--PLEASE ADD THIS TO HTML2/3.
> > 
> > -Quinn
> > -
> > 
> It is not entirely clear to me that I matter -- except that
> my wife and kids tell me so fairly often -- but I can report
> to you on some recent discussions on the html-wg mailing list.
> While I was traveling recently a discussion about <INCLUDE>
> erupted and just as suddenly ended.  I have to admit that 
> I did not follow the discussion, so I cannot report on whether
> it reached a resolution.  

I'm not an SGML expert, but I think this raises some SGML issues.

I think SGML has an inclusion mechanism in the form of "entities"
(though it is not generally supported in HTML).

Introducing a general inclusion of HTML source makes in harder
to verify that the result is valid HTML.

Some other kinds of inclusion (i.e. treating the inclusion like
a nested figure and parsing it as a distinct stream of SGML (if
we could define what this meant)) might not raise the same issues.

    Albert Lunde