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

Re: client side includes (fwd)

From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 14:28:19 +0100
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <o4mq7tk5hvi6roo4qigot437d3rj8k45f8@4ax.com>
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:55:40 -0800, "Daniel Hiester"
<alatus@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I think some of us need to remember something important in this
>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.

Fair enough. Still I think there may be other reasons too for those
sites to abandon 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.

Why would a correct handling of an %entity; inclusion in a browser be
any different over the net, compared to the use of e.g. <IMG... <LINK...
or <OBJECT... ?

>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.

Sorry, but I don't understand; or are we talking about two different
things here ?

>I guess it comes down to this: If you /really/ hate frames, then support

For a real "I hate frames" page I would love to see it assembled locally
through downloaded "reusable" %entities; and then present it with CSS :)

But basically I think the real "problem" with csi at this point in time
would be that we can not find a "graceful fall-back" for it, so you are
right on that, new pages would not be accessible in older browsers.

OTOH, a framed site is not really that accessible in all no-frames
browsers either.

Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 08:31:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:56 UTC