- From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:55:40 -0800
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
I think some of us need to remember something important in this discussion... If, hypothetically, client-side includes were to find their way into a w3c spec, it is a fallacy to conclude that it will be used by yahoo, google, or the other half a billion sites that reverted back to using text on their menus, instead of images. It would only be used by those who do not have server-side includes available to them. In terms of the number of sites a normal web user visits daily, that is a very small number. Client-side includes will not turn the web into a place where billions of people can't access their favorite site, because they can't get the right hardware or the right software to run it. The majority of the sites with csi in them would be home pages, created by people in a high enough socioeconomic class to afford the hardware, software, and internet connection, to create a website, and since classes seem to stick together, all of their friends (the very few who will ever see their site) probably have the right hardware, software, and internet connection, to view the site, as well. In fact, the difference that client-side includes would make to the web as a whole would be so minimal, it's almost a waste of w3c time to even discuss such an issue! Those who are stuck without ssi, the hundreds of thousands of ametuer html authors on free servers, will just continue to use frames in place of what csi could do. I guess it comes down to this: If you /really/ hate frames, then support csi. Otherwise, the discussion of "should we or should we not" do it, is worthless. (I personally found "COULD we or COULD we not do it" to be interesting, and educational, though). Daniel
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 01:50:07 UTC