- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 14/11/2012, at 4:37 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > > (For what it's worth, inclusion in HTML is done using <iframe > > seamless>.) > > Ah. Does that work with older browsers (from the 2005 era onwards)? No, it doesn't reliably work in today's browsers, even. > >> hinclude is intended to be visible to software beyond the site's own > >> scripts. > > > > What else is it intended to be used by? > > Mumble. The intent was that browsers would be able to process it > directly without the JS, and that (for example) search engine spiders > would be able to recognise and process it (since it's uniquely > identified by the namespace). If it's intended to be implemented by user agents, then it should just be part of HTML (either specced in the HTML spec, or a separate spec, e.g. the way that the HTML Editing APIs are specified in a separate spec). No need for prefixes or anything. > However, that was in ~2005; now, it's obvious that JS is pretty much > required for browsing, and search engines just use a headless browser. If it's only intended for scripts in the page, then data-* attributes are the intended framework for the solution. > Some people might also want to process it server-side or in > intermediaries (a la ESI - > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_Side_Includes>), which is used > surprisingly often. If it's not exposed to the client, then it should just be a language on top of HTML, like PHP or SSIs, which is irrelevant to HTML clients. > >> So, what's the appropriate thing to do here? Keep on using hx:include > >> (after all, it works)? use data-include or similar? Or? > > > > Appropriate in what sense? > > Well, it works now, so I'm happy to leave it as is. However, if there > were an argument to move to a different syntax that improved > interoperability / forward compatibility, I'd probably add a mode where > it worked that way too. If it works, then I'd just leave it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 00:32:12 UTC