I said:
>:) In my opinion it would be better to have an INCLUDE-tag,
>:) because in this case for every seperate request the client
>:) can say what he can handle and what he prefers, and the server
>:) can choose which is the best information-representation
>:) he can provide. asked me:
>Can you explain a little about your INCLUDE-tag, with maybe a few
>examples?  The reason is I can't see how, unless you're using
>HYTIME or LINKS (SGML context) that this is extensible or non
>explosive?  So I figure I must have mistaken your intention.

There is an existing include-tag in HTML for years, called
IMG [1]. It can't 'include' HTML-docs, only images.
But it has other features:
If the client can only display GIF and JPEG, but the server
has the image as BMP, and client and server uses the complete
range of HTTP-methods, the server detects the problem of the
client and can try to send him usable data, after converting
the raw-data.
And that can be done for every seperate block of information.

So language problems could be solved in that way, because
there is no chance to have an browser which implements all
languages of the world, with the corresponding fonts.
And if I have a braille-terminal (for blind people), it would be
nice to have a converter (server- or proxy-side), which
can convert a block of special information into a client-displayable
Therefor, in my opinion, there should be a mechanism like
<A REL="INCLUDE" HREF=".../x.html">, which gives the ability
to retrieve special blocks in a usable format.
A browser, which can handle the situation, will display a
understandable form of the data; every other (old) browser
will give a link to information which are not displayable
by the browser.


>From Sat May  6 15:34:50 1995
>Subject: Re: INCLUDE tag
>HTML has had an include tag since 1989.
>The idea was tht you would use <A ...> with REL set to indicate inclusion,
>and HREF pointing to the included object.
>What happened is that an undergraduate student later implemented another tag
>to include images inline, instead of implementing <A....> as intended...

Received on Thursday, 6 July 1995 11:05:17 UTC