3 ms·
Agree, but HTML itself doesn't have and doesn't need "transclusion" when HTML is understood to be an SGML vocabulary and SGML has all these things and more, fro
by tannhaeuser 4y ago
Agree, but HTML itself doesn't have and doesn't need "transclusion" when HTML is understood to be an SGML vocabulary and SGML has all these things and more, from basic sharing of headers/footers and other markup fragments [1] to parametric macro expansion and event-based templating [2].
[1]: http://sgmljs.net/docs/producing-html-tutorial/producing-html-tutorial.html http://sgmljs.net/docs/producing-html-tutorial/producing-htm...
[2]: http://sgmljs.net/docs/templating.html http://sgmljs.net/docs/templating.html
(Putting transclusion into quotes here because that term is from Ted Nelson and is possibly ill-defined in a HTML/SGML context)
- chrismorgan 4y ago> when HTML is understood to be an SGML vocabulary and SGML has all these things and more HTML hasn’t been SGML for a long time, and it’s never going to go back. Understanding it to be an SGML vocabulary would be a serious error. In the context of HTML, what SGML supports is even more irrelevant than it was twenty years ago (and it was pretty thoroughly irrelevant even then).