W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Object and New Insert Code Element

From: Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:47:55 -0400
Message-ID: <3E95AE4B.7030108@awiebe.com>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
object takes the file and treats it like a movie or media file. It 
doesn't just simply insert the code which would work a lot better.

David Woolley wrote:

>>I've been trying for the longest time to insert code from an external 
>>file onto another page for a long time. Using <object> does not work to 
>>good. SSI is not supported and I even tried Flash.
>>    
>>
>
>You need to be more specific about the problem with object.  If it
>is in the implementation, you cannot fix an implemnetation problem
>by requiring the implementation of a new feature which may be even
>more poorly implemented.
>
object takes the file and treats it like a movie or media file. It 
doesn't just simply insert the code which would work a lot better.

>
>Commercial policies of ISPs with respect to SSI are not necessarily
>a valid reason for a change, either, although SSI does have problems
>with respect to cachability (some of these can be fixed in the server,
>though).
>
Using SSI the file has to be on the same domain. That is my reason for 
passing it.

>
>  
>
>>I say one thing XHTML 2 desperately needs is a new element called 
>>insert. We would use it sort of like object except this would be for 
>>inserting code, (not images or applications!) from an external file 
>>source. This is something myself and many others NEED.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>This already exists, for all XML languages, but browsers are not required
>to honour it, and as far as I know, none do.  It actually existed in
>SGML, and is part of XML.  As part of XML, it becomes part of all XML
>based languages.  In the DOCTYPE, you call in entity definition
>files, and in the body of the document you use  &NameOfInsertion;.
>This is actually the same mechanism as used for named characters, but
>the difference there is that the included character definition files
>are included by the primary DTD and are known to the browser.  From an
>XML or SGML point of view, the fact that such entities expand to single
>characters is not special.
>
>  
>
>>It would be so fun to be able to do this.
>>
>><insert data-"http://domain.com/directory/filename.ext" 
>>type-"application/xhtml+xml"/> or
>>    
>>
>
>Insertions really need to be of the same type as the base document (although
>I suppose that could technically be just XML, so there might be some client
>side content negotiation value that is not implied by the entity mechanism.
>On the other hand, an inline inclusion is likely to be so fundamental part
>of the page that one should have negotiated a different page in the first
>place.
>
>  
>
>><insert data-"http://domain.com/directory/filename.ext" 
>>type-"application/xhtml+xml">Your browser does not support XHTML 2.0. 
>>Sorry.</insert>
>>    
>>
>
>"Your browser does not support..." messages are very bad practice.  The
>fallback mechanism is intended to provide equivalent function, but possibly
>with degraded presentation or usability.
>
>Note that include elements are an FAQ, so a search of the archives may
>be worthwhile.
>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 13:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT