W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Replaceable element for parameterising pages (was: Proposal for small enhancement)

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:05:27 +0000
Message-ID: <49396D67.3030502@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: sxn02@yahoo.com
CC: www-html@w3.org

Sorin Schwimmer wrote:

> 1. &nbsp; is replacing one character; I'm talking about more then

&nbsp; is a degenerate case of the entity mechanism, the actual SGML and 
XML entity mechanisms allow arbitrary numbers of characters to be replaced.

> one, including html code that need to be inserted before it is
> interpreted by the browser

I'm not sure about whether markup is allowed in entities.  One problem 
with markup is that you cannot validate the file without expanding the 

Note that quite a lot of the XML specification is about the problem of 
external entities that cannot be processed because the viewer is a 
non-validating one.

> 2. I'm not sure what you mean by "redirection" - is it loading

I hope I wrote indirection.  I.E., inline you have &entity; and in the 
internal subset of the DTD you define entity to refer to an external file.

> another page instead of this one? If so, it does not serve my
> purpose. I want to add some on-the-fly generated code (be it text
> content, HTML code, JS code, even SVG code if embedded in HTML), not

I think inlining JS is generally discouraged.

The only legitimate way of changing the DOM at run time is by explicitly 
  manipulating it.

> to replace the whole page.

> 3. The id attribute has nothing to do with the usual semantic for an
> id attribute. Remember that the <r> element dissapears, by being

id is still a reserved attribute.

> replaced with the invoked content, and so will dissapear it's id
> attribute. It is the same like using #define in C/C++ - whatever name
> was used there is replaced with the actual value by the preprocessor,
> and the compiler never sees it.
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 18:06:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 December 2008 18:06:12 GMT