> Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@w3future.com> 08/02/04 03:07PM >>>
>
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> Correct. You can embed any other format you like using that module as 
>> long as the browser supports the MIME type. In fact, you can already do 
>> this in HTML 4.01 using the OBJECT element. To embed MathML for example.
>
> Isn't there a difference? I.e. Edward probably wants to include document 
> fragments, but straight embedding only supports complete documents.
> F.e. with including the style rules from the including document apply, 
> with embedding they do not.

I suppose the options are either embedding XHTML 2.0 document fragments or else
asking user agents to be able to figure out how to apply embedded XHTML 2.0
documents. Taken raw, a new <html/> within the <body/> is obviously not kosher.

Also, you can call me Ed. :)

> Toby A Inkster <the-w3c-cant-run-a-mailing-list-properly@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 08/02/04 03:34PM
>> On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 14:51, Edward Lass wrote:
>> One of the most common uses (read: abuses) of server-side scripts
>> is to perform the simple task of merging two HTML documents.
>
> Why do you see this as an abuse?

It just seems like a waste to use powerful server-side scripting to perform
a rather simple function. Frames were so popular (until most people concluded
they were annoying) precisely because they offered a way to split documents
into content and navigation.

I could draw an analogy to one particular XHTML Module. XML.com says, "The
goal of XForms is to provide the 20% of necessary functionality to eliminate
80% of the need for scripting" (http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2001/09/05/xforms.html ).
I've seen this same 80-20 point made elsewhere about XForms. They're talking
about client-side scripts, but I think it would be healthy to think similarly
about some of the most elementary uses of server-side scripting.

- Ed.