Posted by Spartanicus on 12/28/05 11:38

"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Some things cannot be added to HTML without fundamentally breaking every
>> single UA in existence.
>
>I don't buy that for two reasons:
>
>1. It's like each and every new element that was ever introduced in HTML
>history.

I illustrated why not. But since you decided to snip that I assume that
you don't want to know.

>It would not break any UA in existence, it would only
>(possibly) break pages that use it.

It would result in existing UAs being incapable of dealing with sites
that use such a feature.

>2. It could be implemented in a way that does not hurt old UAs, similar
>to frame/noframe, script/noscript etc:
>
><include src...>
><noinclude>
>render this stuff here if include is not supported
></noinclude>

That wouldn't work. If the content of <noinclude> were the same as what
is in the external resource then it would defeat the point of the
<include> element. If it were to be a link to the external resource, for
example a SE bot would index the resource. If, as it should be, the to
be included resource is served as text/plain (since it's not an HTML
document), SE's would link to orphaned code fragments that wouldn't be
scanned for HTML constructs like links.

Fundamentally broken, and thus unacceptable.

--
Spartanicus

[Back to original message]