[whatwg] Client-side includes proposal
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Aug 21 12:57:48 PDT 2008
Thomas Broyer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
>> And what would the workaround for legacy browsers be?
Yikes! Distributed extensibility! Namespaces in HTML!
Anyway. Of course this can be simply done in JS, and many people are
But then... if many people use scripting that could also be done in a
declarative way, why not add that?
I'd also like to repeat that client-side inclusion can be *very* useful
when including repeating fragments into many pages (headers,
footers...), or also when including frequently changing fragments into
otherwise static pages (ads, ...).
Finally, just because a feature can be useful for static content (such
as when read from CDs) doesn't automatically make it less useful for
things on the web.
More information about the whatwg