Sat, 6 May 1995 15:11:13 +0500

> > > In my opinion, there is no reason to have an <include> tag in html,
> > > where the <include> includes another file, combining both files to
> > > one html file. That will only lead to more network traffic and longer
> > > display times (since 2 requests have to be made.)
> (Steve Abatangle) made a withering comment:
> You clearly don't understand hypermedia. HTML will not have grown up until
> it *does* have an <INCLUDE> tag.

HTML has had an include tag since 1989.

The idea was tht you would use <A ...> with REL set to indicate inclusion,
and HREF pointing to the included object.

What happened is that an undergraduate student later implemented another tag
to include images inline, instead of implementing <A....> as intended...

However, accusing people of `not understanding hypermedia' is not likely
to encourage them to do what you want :-)

Work on link types in the HTML Working Group may soon lead to a specification
for how to do inclusions in this way that does actually get implemented.


Liam Quin, SoftQuad Inc +1 416 239 4801   <URL:>
HexSweeper NeWS game;OPEN LOOK+XView+mf-fonts FAQs;lq-text unix text retrieval
SoftQuad HoTMetaL/HTML Editor; SoftQuad Panorama/WWW SGML Viewer
See our Web page for HoTMetaL ftp sites...