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

Re: client side includes

From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:38:40 -0800
Message-ID: <00ae01c08680$51d19740$102eb3d1@sol>
To: "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>
>> You can implement such a feature by importing javascript files from a
.js,
>> but I agree, it would be nice if there was something like this:
>>
>> <link rel="import" type="text/html" href="file.html" />

>The problem with this and using OBJECT to include documents, is that
>
>1. text/html is a full HTML document with title, sylesheet, etc. and is
>not apporitate as a snippet of HTML
>
>2. Includes like this do not become part of the documents GROVE and
>becomes a serious handicap when trying to get it to work with current SGML
>processor.
>
>Entities do not have the above problem.

I'm all for keeping html as minimalistic and structured as possible, but I
don't understand how something that would be so easy to carry out (and
already is carried out for CSS) is in conflict with specs that are barely
even relevent to the modern application of html.

If you don't like text/html, then, what, text/plain? Or would it be more
satisfactory to make all of the effort to create text/include? I don't
understand the issues brought up by Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Eriksson, and Mr. Ray,
but I want to.

Is this the reason why client-side includes does not exist yet? Because of
this conflict of interest? I have the greatest respect for structuralists,
but some times, I just don't understand them at all.

To me, it just seems to make semantic sense, to do it as a LINK element.
OBJECT element is out, I assumed, because it would try to load it like an
iframe, not just include the text in the document for parsing, the way it
does for a css file. I don't know the iso specs, or sgml, but I think I
understand how a modern web browser parses html.

Let me ask the structuralists on this list: how would /you/ do client-side
includes? Let's say, how would you do it in either a "future version" of
XHTML, or maybe as a module for XHTML 1.1? (Will modules seriously ever
become an implemented reality? I'm really interested, but uninformed.)

In the meantime, I'll be happy with ssi.

Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 22:33:20 GMT

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