Re: XHTML2.0 - transclusion

2007/1/24, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>:

> Why? Isn't this what intellectual property law is for?


Law is one thing - tools are the other. You can always abuse law by simple
"copy-paste" method.
What I want is possibility of transluding parts of content other than
images, etc.
In hypertext theory possibility of including parts of documents is crucial.
Why do we have to waste space, copy the same content when we can simply
transclude something? Let's say you want to be up to date with some contnet
and place it on your page - not all the people must know php, ssi cgi to
write their own "fetch that content" script.

> 3. Transclusion
> > Possible for whole (allowed by author) document with <object> tag or
> > for its parts also with object tag with some parameters.
> > "type" stands for the way contnt should be rendered: text, xhtml,
> > html, etc...
>
> But what specifications should be followed to transform content between
> wildly different media types?


For example ?

>
> I assume you meant "application/xhtml+xml" and "text/plain"?


You are right.

So what should happen when some <object/> /does/ transclude content
> containing another <object/>? Should the entire transclusion be
> cancelled?


For today, until someone get better idea - yes. This is because someone can
try to include content which tries to include including content ;) They'll
both wait for each other and that's really stupid thing...
Eg.
<!-- document with translusion: doc1.html -->
<object src="www.remoteserver.com/doc2.html<http://www.remoteserver.com/document.html>"
id="main"
srctype="application/html+xml" type="plain" transid="someid">
<em>cannot get content from remote server</em>
</object>

> <!-- other document with translusion: doc2.html -->
> <object src="www.remoteserver.com/doc1.html<http://www.remoteserver.com/document.html>"
id="someid"
> srctype="application/html+xml" type="plain" transid="main">
> <em>cannot get content from remote server</em>
> </object>

Regards
Jakub