W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 1998

RE: include in html

From: David Norris <kg9ae@geocities.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:03:44 -0500
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301bd6a76$9985a640$1a4378cc@illusionary.dyn.ml.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor
Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 11:46 AM
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: include in html

>The advantage of client side include that I see is a reduction on bandwith

Excellent point.  I agree that would be a benefit for everyone.  It should
be used in moderation, but, useful.  The only implication is backward
compatibility.  That could be handled by the server, though.  Browsers
capabilities are well documented in the BrowsCap.ini file freely available
from BrowsCap Central.  The server could include the file automatically if
the UA isn't capable.  Content negotiation would be in order.

>IMO OBJECT includes are inadequate of many purposes, because the included
>object isn't part of the grove (parse tree) of the resulting document.

OBJECT is very inadequate for building a document.  I don't really think
anyone intended it to be used in that way, either.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of terje@in-progress.com
Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 3:36 PM
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: include in html

>Its better with a hybrid solution...

Hybrid seems to be more efficient in most situations.

>For example, one might want to build a document based on content from
>multiple servers. This would be far more efficiently solved by the browser
>than require the content to pass by the server.

It could be desirable to do this.  It would use less total network bandwidth
if the UA does this.  That is a place for the hybrid approach.  I think it
would be a bit more seamless, for the user, if it were done on the server
side.  I can have my server include a document from another server very
easily and at a much higher speed than most UAs can.  For example, <?php
include "http://some.remote.machine/file.inc" ?> would include that file
before streaming it out to the UA.  It would be easier to deal with on the
server side if, for instance, the remote server is unable to respond.  The
server tends to be inherently smarter than the UA, and, has more knowledge
of the environment to handle such a problem.

>The discussion about where in the system the inclusion should occur is an
>old one.

I agree.  It is old and not completely decided.  I remember at least 6 or 7
threads about it on this list alone in the past year or so.  It is something
that is hard to decide.  I agree that it is useful.  I just think that
client side stuff should be used in moderation within HTML.  HTML is just a
way of conveying the meaning of a document.  I don't see it becoming more
than that.  I think that the inclusion would best achieved at some other
level with HTML being the end product.

SSI is a hack at best.  It was another of those interim solutions.
Fortunately, SSI is easily replaced with something functional and not
hackish.  I wish we could make FONT, I, B, U, etc disappear as easily.

,David Norris

World Wide Web - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1652/
Illusionary Web - http://illusionary.dyn.ml.org/ <-- 02:00 - 10:00 GMT
Video/Audio Phone - callto:illusionary.dyn.ml.org
Page via mail - 412039@pager.mirabilis.com
ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039
E-Mail - kg9ae@geocities.com
Received on Friday, 17 April 1998 23:03:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:36 GMT