Re: Inline code a mistake?

David Ornstein (davido@objarts.com)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:34:03 -0700


Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960426203403.00dd7f5c@mail.objarts.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:34:03 -0700
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, www-html@w3.org
From: David Ornstein <davido@objarts.com>
Subject: Re: Inline code a mistake?

At 03:58 PM 4/26/96 -0400, Paul Prescod wrote:
>As I understand it, the main argument for embedding inline code is
>convenience and performance.
>
>Convenience:
>
>I think that the important thing to remember is that a URL represents a web
>"object", not a file. You can _encode_ a URL as multiple files (i.e. server
>side includes). Or you can use one file to create many URL(i.e. inline CGI). 

An excellent reminder.  So y'all understand my application, I'm working on
tools to support server-side scripts, not client...

>Inline script code can be converted by the server into a _reference_ to
>another URL (where the server stores the script file). That way the author
>gets the convenience of "inline coding" and the Web maintains the separation
>of code from document content (which results in simpler, smaller, cheaper,
>faster, more stable client software).

I like this approach, but it's mostly applicable to the client-side
processing stuff.

>Anyhow, I tend to think that editing problems should be solved in editing
>software, not in the interchange language.

True.  FWIW, on a practical level, I don't think people who are developing
serious sites are doing much development with tools other than souped-up
editors, though.  This means that for a while (at least until we understand
what WYSIWYG really *means* in the context of Web authoring) many people
will still want the convenience of putting scripts right into their *file*...