W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Suggestions for improvement

From: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:20:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4126b3450801210920p33f96593h1f82009f0d2aad06@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Howard Cary Morris" <Howard_Cary_Morris@hotmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 12/01/2008, Howard Cary Morris <Howard_Cary_Morris@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Currently I know of no way to include html source from another file or
> site. may I suggest either
> <copy src="filename or url" /> or
> <script src="filename or url" type=html />
> Additional reason for suggestion: Some feel that all pages of a site have
> the same look and feel, and top be able to copy html source would simplify
> the process of making all page headers the same.
>

Am I right in interpreting this as a suggestion for the incorporation into
HTML of something like PHP includes, but client-side? If so, might there not
already be reasonable ways to achieve this on the client side? If not, it's
a useful suggestion.

Minor augment against: may be able to do this with forms.
>
> Things to decide if implemented:
> What can copied sources include , <html>, <head>, <body>, <script>, etc.
> Have mixed feelings about above except <script> or <copy> which either
> should be disallowed or cause an error if a vicious circle occurs.
>

Presumably, the element specification would have to explain the allowed
elements of the code that is to be included, or would have to e.g. somehow
cascade over an included <head> element so that it is over-ridden by the
<head> element of the including document.

Slight improvement:
> <copy src="filename or url" &parm1=... &parm2=... /> so you can have
> substitutable parameters. Name of parameters are up to coder. When the
> copied code is expanded &parm1; gets replaced with the value of &parm1 (I
> know semicolon seems redundant, but consistent with values like &nbsp;).
> Could also allow multiple <default &parm1=... /> to set default values in
> copy member if that parameter was not specified. I think it should be an
> error if the default value for the same parameter is specified more than
> once and both default values are not the same. If the coder wants one
> default value in one part of the code and a second in another part of the
> code then two different parameters should be used. I suppose that constructs
> like <default &parm2=&parm1; /> should me allowed.
>

If this is to work, a syntax (e.g. some flavour of regexp) would have to be
adopted.

Hope you consider this useful,
>     Howard Morris
>

It's an interesting suggestion, thank you!

N.B. In my defence in case I've missed something obvious: I'm new to this
list, and also fairly new to the draft HTML5 spec.

Sam
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 04:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC