cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Russell <p...@luminas.co.uk>
Subject Re: Quick point on xinclude syntax.
Date Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:48:09 GMT
* Stefano Mazzocchi (stefano@apache.org) wrote :
> Last time I checked, the XInclude syntax changed from elements to
> attributes, following the xlink metaphor. And I believe this is a better
> way of doing things since xinclusion is a behavioral property (like
> link) not a structural one.
> Did the proposal went back on elements? I'll checkit out myself, but in
> that case, I'll propose to drop support for Xinclude alltogether and
> implement our own namespace for that, also because there is a problem
> with XInclude:

I think they did change it back, yes. There's a paragraph in the current
spec which says words to the effect of 'due to user feedback, we have
returned to the element style notation for XInclude'.

> This serves two purposes:
> 
> 1) we are free to innovate and do the right things without messing with
> W3C politics
> 2) we are future-compatible with xinclude client-side support without
> requiring W3C acknoledgment for server side processing (which is almost
> impossible since they seem to believe serving is a natural property of
> the web! go figure)

> what do you think?

Yeah, makes sense. For the time being, how does:

	xmlns:server-include="http://apache.org/include"
	server-include:href="uri"
	server-include:namespace="default-namespace"

grab people? Would we need to an equivalent of the 'parse' attribute? My
guess is not (since at present all the content will be XML streams
anyway).

Thoughts?

P.
-- 
Paul Russell                                 Email:   paul@luminas.co.uk
Technical Director                             Tel:  +44 (0)20 8553 6622
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)870 28 47489
This is not an official statement or order.    Web:    www.luminas.co.uk

Mime
View raw message