Posted by Greg N. on 12/28/05 15:39

Spartanicus wrote:

>>>It would result in existing UAs being incapable of dealing with sites
>>>that use such a feature.
>>
>>Yes, it would result in an incomplete page being rendered. This has
>>happened many times when new HTML elements were introduced.
>
> Name an example.

Script. Iframe. Frame. Style. Img. Object. Applet.

By the way, let me rephrase my sentence above: "It _could_ result in an
incomplete page being rendered" is more accurate.

Apart from that, you may take every single one of your arguments and
replace INCLUDE with one of the elements above. Your arguments would
have the same validity, yet all the elements above were deemend worth
implementing.

>><include src=current-number-of-cars-in-tukkatukkaland.html>
>><noinclude>
>>Last time we counted, there were 123456 cars in tukkatukka land.
>></noinclude>

> As I said, this would completely defeat any potential benefit client
> side inclusion could offer for an author.

That argument would hold for IFRAME, SCRIPT, etc., too. As always, new
HTML elements are not overwhelmingly useful initially and have to be
used defensively until support for them is well established.

> Breaking such a fundamental principle that requires every UA to be
> updated is a big step. The minor convenience that introduction of client
> side inclusion would bring pales into insignificance compared to that.

Please make an attempt to explain to me why this would be any worse or
more complicated than the introduction of the, say, IFRAME element.

--
Gregor's Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

[Back to original message]