- From: Edward Lass <elass@goer.state.ny.us>
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:24:39 -0400
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
> Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@w3future.com> 08/02/04 03:07PM >>> > >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> Correct. You can embed any other format you like using that module as >> long as the browser supports the MIME type. In fact, you can already do >> this in HTML 4.01 using the OBJECT element. To embed MathML for example. > > Isn't there a difference? I.e. Edward probably wants to include document > fragments, but straight embedding only supports complete documents. > F.e. with including the style rules from the including document apply, > with embedding they do not. I suppose the options are either embedding XHTML 2.0 document fragments or else asking user agents to be able to figure out how to apply embedded XHTML 2.0 documents. Taken raw, a new <html/> within the <body/> is obviously not kosher. Also, you can call me Ed. :) > Toby A Inkster <the-w3c-cant-run-a-mailing-list-properly@tobyinkster.co.uk> > 08/02/04 03:34PM >> On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 14:51, Edward Lass wrote: >> One of the most common uses (read: abuses) of server-side scripts >> is to perform the simple task of merging two HTML documents. > > Why do you see this as an abuse? It just seems like a waste to use powerful server-side scripting to perform a rather simple function. Frames were so popular (until most people concluded they were annoying) precisely because they offered a way to split documents into content and navigation. I could draw an analogy to one particular XHTML Module. XML.com says, "The goal of XForms is to provide the 20% of necessary functionality to eliminate 80% of the need for scripting" (http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2001/09/05/xforms.html). I've seen this same 80-20 point made elsewhere about XForms. They're talking about client-side scripts, but I think it would be healthy to think similarly about some of the most elementary uses of server-side scripting. - Ed.
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 17:24:50 UTC