- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:40:48 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Shannon wrote: > > The discussion on seamless iframes reminded me of something I've felt > was missing from HTML - an equivalent client functionality to > server-side includes as provided by PHP, Coldfusion and SSI. In > server-side includes the document generated from parts appears as a > single entity rather than nested frames. In other words the source code > seen by the UA is indistiguishable from a non-frames HTML page in every > way. What advantage does this have over server-side includes? The <iframe doc="" seamless> idea has the advantage of not blocking rendering, which a client-side parsing-level include would. I don't really see what the advantage of a client-side parsing-level include would be. > The other issue with iframes is that for many page snippets the concept > of a title, meta tags and other headers don't make sense or simply > repeat what was in the main document. More often than not the <head> > section is meaningless yet must still be included for the frame to be > "well-formed" or indexed by spiders. Yeah, I've been considering making the <title> element optional for documents that aren't meant to be navigated to directly, like includes. > HTTP 1.1 pipelining should remove any performance concerns that includes > would have over traditional SSI since the retrieval process only > requires the sending of a few more bytes of request and response > headers. A TCP round-trip is very expensive. A client-side parsing-level include would mean that the parser would have to stop while a complete round-trip is performed. There's really no way to get around that short of making it a higher-level construct like <iframe seamless>. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 00:40:48 UTC