Templates by hand?

[Hullaballoo]

Is there any way in XHTML to have the contents of another included inline
with a special tag?

Basically what I want to do is split some common elements of my web pages
into a different html file, so that if I change the common bits, I need
change them in only one place.

If it were OOP I'd derive each page from a base page. I guess the question I
really want to ask is "is it possible to create templates for my web pages
that allow me to effect changes on all pages that follow that template". I'm
not talking about stylistic changes using CSS, but content changes. Any
offers?

Cheers,

H

 

[Dylan Parry]

Is there any way in XHTML to have the contents of another included inline
with a special tag?

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Include_one_file_in_another

 

[Hullaballoo]

Is preprocessing the only way?

It seems like quite a common thing to want to do, is there any plan to
provide innate support for this in XHTML?? I can't see a reason that this
couldn't be done in the client's browser. The good ol' <link> tag could be
extended to provide 'inline' functionality.

Cheers

H

 

[SpaceGirl]

Is preprocessing the only way?

It seems like quite a common thing to want to do, is there any plan to
provide innate support for this in XHTML?? I can't see a reason that this
couldn't be done in the client's browser. The good ol' <link> tag could be
extended to provide 'inline' functionality.

Cheers

H

It is a very common thing to do, and the facility is provided by very
powerful server side scripts. Why would you want that handled by the
client? That would throw up all kinds of dangers of 3rd parties inluding
documents from your server etc etc... if it's all server side, the
individual 'included files' that go to make one page may never EVER be
seen by the big bad internet...

There's no support for any way of including one file inside another in
XHTML, and even if there were plans to in the future, it would be 5
years before you saw another browsers in use supporting it to make it
any good at all...


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[David Dorward]

Hullaballoo wrote:

Please director you attention towards:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Is preprocessing the only way?

No, the previously referenced document lists five techniques which are not
preprocessing. That said, preprocessing manages to be the easiest while
also being least demanding on both server and client.

It seems like quite a common thing to want to do, is there any plan to
provide innate support for this in XHTML?

I think I saw some mention of "Any element can have a src attribute" being
planned for XHTML 2.0. Browser support might be up to handling that by
2020.

 

[m]

Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

LOL, good one, David!

 

[Hullaballoo]

Please director you attention towards:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Thank you for your reply David. I must "director" your attention to:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/

Either this is a moderated group or it isn't. I cannot abide self appointed
nettiquette enforcers. They're like table monitors in primary schools, only
worse. Mind you, they had better command of the English language.

Signal to noise David. Signal to noise.

H

 

[Neal]

Thank you for your reply David. I must "director" your attention to:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/

Either this is a moderated group or it isn't. I cannot abide self
appointed
nettiquette enforcers. They're like table monitors in primary schools,
only
worse. Mind you, they had better command of the English language.

Signal to noise David. Signal to noise.

Let's see, he made a request for you to follow a convention we all adhere
to, and for good reason. The request was brief. Your tirade was the noise.

You're the one who wants the help...

 

[Dylan Parry]

Either this is a moderated group or it isn't. I cannot abide self
appointed nettiquette enforcers.

It doesn't matter what you think about netiquette, it's what the group as
whole does that counts. In this group the convention is to bottom post.

Incidentally, if you are going to be picky about spelling and grammar,
then you should learn to check your own first. Netiquette has three "t"s
not four. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=netiquette

 

[Sam Hughes]

Thank you for your reply David. I must "director" your attention to:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/

Either this is a moderated group or it isn't. I cannot abide
self-appointed
nettiquette enforcers. They're like table monitors in primary schools,
only worse. Mind you, they had better command of the English language.

Signal to noise David. Signal to noise.

I have noticed that this group is one of the most viciously pretentious
about its posting standards. It has a wiki article that proclaims its
title, "HOW TO POST," with as much fortitude in the certainty of its
rightfulness as do the Ten Commandments. Quite honestly, I think this
group has more bottom-posting purists than it does web standards purists.

However, it is this nit-picking that has particularly kept the group in
its efficient state. It actually is helpful to have such a standard. It
is actually true that bottom-posting with snippage is better than
top-posting. As far as signal-to-noise ratios go, the purism of some of
these group-members' posting standards gives overall improvement.

 

[Jeff Thies]

I have noticed that this group is one of the most viciously pretentious

about its posting standards.

Really? What groups do you post to?

Groups of a "technical" nature require usenet etiquitte to be observed.
That also means searching the FAQ and reading the group for a while.
This group is tolerant of off topic and newbie posts.

Perhaps you are hanging out in alt.nicole.richie?

Jeff



It has a wiki article that proclaims its