On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM, João Eiras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> <include src="static-header" /> >> <include src="user-specific-data" /> >> <include src="dynamic-daily-content" /> > > This is something that would probably not be represented with a new element, > because elements are preserved in the DOM tree so they can be accessed and > queried. > So then you'd have a question: keep <include>in the dom and allow access to > children like an iframe, or replace <include> entirely ? > The answer could be intuitive, but that can open a can of worms. Then you > can do all sorts of dynamic manipulation, which would have to be very well > specified. > I think the way to go would be a processing instruction. > > The idea is good though ! But I think could be better implemented with a css > template like feature. I don't like the idea of a new element. > > Bye.
This seems to be mostly useful for people creating small websites that are afraid of server side scripting languages like PHP, Python and Ruby. That being the case, if something like this is implemented the included content should definitely not be accessed like with an iframe. The elements included should be in the DOM tree of the parent just as if the includes were done server side. Accessing the DOM of an iframe from the parent and vice versa causes people a lot of confusion. I don't think we need to add that level of confusion to the group of users that would most likely use this feature. Also, a bonus of keeping <include src="some-content.html" /> in the DOM, is that changing the source could reload the content of that element. You would have instant AJAX/XHR for dummies. - Greg