Re: Idea for adding to HTML

Paul Prescod (papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 15:59:40 -0500


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 15:59:40 -0500
Message-Id: <199603182059.PAA20010@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: ao950@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Derbyshire),
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: Idea for adding to HTML
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 05:42 PM 3/18/96 GMT, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>
>A thought I have had is the creation of *inline html*. These would be like
>inline images, except they would actually be html. There would be a tag
>such as <inhtml src=blahblahblah.html> and the appropriate HTML would be
>inserted and rendered at that location. This would make it easy to
>implement things like toolbars uniformly on a group of pages, by having a
>file containing the toolbar html and inlining it in other documents.

This has been discussed many, many times. There is no concensus on the right
way to do this. In particular, your insertion of HTML in the middle of an
HTML document means that the first document cannot be validated without web
access (because the included document could have mistakes in it) and a
change to the second document could render the first invalid. If you check
the archives of the mailing list, you can find out the other schemes that
have been proposed but have inevitably failed to achieve sufficient support.

Anyhow, there are several proposed ways to implement a uniform toolbar that
do not need HTML inclusion. You can use FRAMEs, like in Netscape, BANNERs
like in the now-expired HTML 3.0 or Imagemaps. Furthermore, there is
absoultely no reason that you cannot use the already-proposed EMBED element
to include small HTML documents. You just have to encourage your browser
vendor to support it.

 Paul Prescod