[whatwg] Client-side includes proposal
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Aug 19 14:06:22 PDT 2008
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> > In the case of non-Web content, the use of HTML is an academic point,
> > since any format would work as well.
> Really? Why? and how? That's certainly not self-evident.
When you control the software used to read the data, it doesn't matter
what the data format is.
> Aside from embedded links, which can point into the file system and are
> usually relative anyway, there's very little web-specific about HTML.
> It's just one format that can be served over HTTP or read from a disk,
> just like PDF or text/plain or OpenDocument.
> HTML has some nice characteristics like resolution independence, direct
> editability as text, and automatic reflow; but these are in no way
> limited to network transfers.
It has charactersitics that are independent of its use on the Web, yes.
> For many use cases, especially cross-platform ones, HTML is the
> formatted text format of choice.
HTML isn't a formatted text format...
> A properly designed HTML spec should not require, prohibit, or
> preference a document being read from the network or from a local file
> system or via any other protocol. HTML 1 through 4 and XHTML 1 and 2 had
> this important characteristic. I hope HTML 5 does as well.
I imagine it will. But it's not a requirement. If something comes up that
would make HTML better for the Web and as a side-effect makes it not work
for non-Web cases, then we should do it, not because of the side-effect,
but because it makes HTML better for the Web. That HTML5 works for non-Web
cases can be a happy accident, but it's not an intentional characteristic.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg