W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2001

Re: client side includes (fwd)

From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:55:40 -0800
Message-ID: <004901c08e77$7d8fc380$ee27b3d1@sol>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
I think some of us need to remember something important in this
discussion...

If, hypothetically, client-side includes were to find their way into a w3c
spec, it is a fallacy to conclude that it will be used by yahoo, google, or
the other half a billion sites that reverted back to using text on their
menus, instead of images.

It would only be used by those who do not have server-side includes
available to them. In terms of the number of sites a normal web user visits
daily, that is a very small number.

Client-side includes will not turn the web into a place where billions of
people can't access their favorite site, because they can't get the right
hardware or the right software to run it. The majority of the sites with csi
in them would be home pages, created by people in a high enough
socioeconomic class to afford the hardware, software, and internet
connection, to create a website, and since classes seem to stick together,
all of their friends (the very few who will ever see their site) probably
have the right hardware, software, and internet connection, to view the
site, as well.

In fact, the difference that client-side includes would make to the web as a
whole would be so minimal, it's almost a waste of w3c time to even discuss
such an issue! Those who are stuck without ssi, the hundreds of thousands of
ametuer html authors on free servers, will just continue to use frames in
place of what csi could do.

I guess it comes down to this: If you /really/ hate frames, then support
csi. Otherwise, the discussion of "should we or should we not" do it, is
worthless. (I personally found "COULD we or COULD we not do it" to be
interesting, and educational, though).

Daniel
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 01:50:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:45 GMT