- From: <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:55:20 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 14 Jul, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > please pester more people with it, how about the html / xhtml lists? > @include menu.html is every bit as valid as linking to an image, css, > or script. Personally I cannot agree with you. Using a client-side methodology to include content and structure is a Bad Idea. A web document is composed of, from the bottom up, structure, content, scripts, and layout. If the structure is missing, users are in trouble. If the content is missing, users are gone. If the scripts are missing, no big deal. If the layout is missing - well, it could look prettier for sure.[*] If you create a mechanism for inclusion on the client - say OBJECT - and that mechanism doesn't work or isn't supported it is easy to include alternate content. However that leaves you with updating two versions. So we'll include the alternate content from the same source as the OBJECT-included content at the servers-ide. But that defies the whole idea ... Today you can use frames to include content. And you can put alternatives in the noframes section. You can even include the same content in both places - if you have a server-side or pre-processing system. Done right, client-side inclusion of content and structure still leaves you with either doing the manual update job you wanted to avoid, leaving users with out-of-date versions, or using a server-side/off-line system to include the alternative. In which case you could just use the same system to include the content in the first place. Back to square one. [*] Yes, I know that layout can improve accessibility. -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 18:56:51 UTC