4 ms·

Neat reference, going to look into that. The <object> tag appears to include/embed other html pages. An embedded HTML page: <object data="snippet.html" width

• nephyrin 2y ago
  <object> used like this is just a poor iframe in a much shakier spot in the standards, mostly for backwards compatibility. Like iframe, it "includes" a full subdocument as a block element, which isn't quite what the OP is hinting at.
  • gpvos 2y ago
    Sound like it's good enough for headers and footers, which is 80% of what people need.
    • masklinn 2y ago
      That’s what lots of sites used to do in the late 90s and early aughts in order to have fixed elements. It was really shit. Browser navigation cues disappear, minor errors will fuck up the entire thing by navigating fixed element frames instead of contents, design flexibility disappears (even as consistent styling requires more efforts), frames don’t content-size so will clip and show scroll bars all over, debugging is absolute ass, … And it increases resource use.
      • j45 2y ago
        It’s not ideal, but t it does exist in pure html… and the OP didn’t seem to note it. A bit of vanilla JavaScript with WebComponents is a few lines: https://gomakethings.com/html-includes-with-web-components/ https://gomakethings.com/html-includes-with-web-components/ Edit: “t” was supposed to be the object tag.
        • masklinn 2y ago
          > it does exist in pure html [...] JavaScript with WebComponents You seem to have a rather original definition of "pure HTML".
          • j45 2y ago
            Typo, from the numerous fat finger typos you see above. :) An html only option that exists is using object. Replying to the miss of the OP in case others might find it suitable. If a tiny bit of vanilla JavaScript can be tolerated, WebComponents appear to have a broad standardized approach that is not framework dependant.
    • j45 2y ago
      Whether it’s good enough or not it does exist and everyone can decide if it works for them. I’d probably explore WebComponents, but wanting the height of JavaScript without JavaScript..
  • j45 2y ago
    It’s an option built into html. The OP doesn’t need to hint.
• jazzypants 2y ago
  Yeah, that is just a crappier version of HTML Frames [1] 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_(World_Wide_Web) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_(World_Wide_Web)
  • j45 2y ago
    I don’t disagree, the premise of the article seems to be unaware, it’s entirely possible to us html alone to do includes. :) Some might argue react is over abstracted or over engineered to do the same. Interpretation and preference is different than if it’s possible