- From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:36:34 -0800
- To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
David Perrell wrote (7:21 PM -0800 11/29/97): " Todd Fahrner wrote: " " >What if includes could reference elements within HTML files by [unique " element or assigned] name, class, or ID, and that only the referenced " element(s) and children would render? The default could be the HTML element " (in which case the referenced doc's stylesheet would apply), or " alternatively the BODY (in which case the referencing document's stylesheet " would apply), a DIV, a table, paragraph, etc. " " Seems reasonable. But doesn't the name "OBJECT" literally preclude its use " as a client-side inclusion mechanism for a bunch of inline HTML fragments? " It would have to be renamed "MISCSTUFF". Why is an HTML document a more integral object than, say, a DIV, or ordered list, or other markup "fragment"? For a non-validating UA, what's the difference between a well-formed fragment and a document? Todd Fahrner mailto:fahrner@pobox.com http://www.verso.com/agitprop/ The printed page transcends space and time. The printed page, the infinitude of books, must be transcended. THE ELECTRO-LIBRARY. - El Lissitzky, 1923
Received on Saturday, 29 November 1997 23:31:57 UTC