- From: Jakub Dabrowski <jakubdab@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:29:27 +0200
- To: "Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis" <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <932c89350701241429h21684eoa4cdf02c073be999@mail.gmail.com>
or: <!-- Allow transclusion of the entire div, but prevent transclusion of sub-fragments like #55687 --> <!-- A dynamically included ad: --> <div id="55687"> <object src="http://ads.example.com/496960707" type="application/xhtml+xml"/> <p id="55687-content" permitTransclusion="parent">Here's the vital content you actually want to read.</p> </div> where "permitTransclusion" is to be changed to something shorter... here just for reference to your example. Jakub 2007/1/24, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>: > Moreover, Dabrowski's proposal suggests allowing IP holders to designate > precisely which fragments may be transcluded from their content. That > could be an advertizing cash cow over the long tail, with something > like: > > <!-- Allow transclusion of the entire div, but prevent transclusion > of sub-fragments like #55687-content: --> > <div id="55687" permitTransclusion="entire-only"> > <!-- A dynamically included ad: --> > <object src="http://ads.example.com/496960707" type="application/xhtml > +xml"/> > <p id="55687-content">Here's the vital content you actually want to > read.</p> > </div> > -- Ted said "Let there be a hypertext" and there was a hypertext and it was good. And then Tim said "Let there be a html" and there was a html but it was not good.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 22:29:53 UTC