W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2007

Re: XHTML2.0 - transclusion

From: Jakub Dabrowski <jakubdab@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:29:27 +0200
Message-ID: <932c89350701241429h21684eoa4cdf02c073be999@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis" <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
or:
<!-- Allow transclusion of the entire div, but prevent transclusion of
sub-fragments like #55687 -->
<!-- A dynamically included ad: -->
<div id="55687">
<object src="http://ads.example.com/496960707"
type="application/xhtml+xml"/>
<p id="55687-content" permitTransclusion="parent">Here's the vital content
you actually want to read.</p>
</div>

where "permitTransclusion" is to be changed to something shorter... here
just for reference to your example.
Jakub


2007/1/24, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>:

> Moreover, Dabrowski's proposal suggests allowing IP holders to designate
> precisely which fragments may be transcluded from their content. That
> could be an advertizing cash cow over the long tail, with something
> like:
>
> <!-- Allow transclusion of the entire div, but prevent transclusion
> of sub-fragments like #55687-content: -->
> <div id="55687" permitTransclusion="entire-only">
> <!-- A dynamically included ad: -->
> <object src="http://ads.example.com/496960707" type="application/xhtml
> +xml"/>
> <p id="55687-content">Here's the vital content you actually want to
> read.</p>
> </div>
>



-- 
Ted said "Let there be a hypertext"
and there was a hypertext and it was good.
And then Tim said "Let there be a html"
and there was a html but it was not good.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 22:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT