tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191291.post1959716104027170002..comments2024-02-05T22:23:32.443-08:00Comments on Coding In Paradise: Niall's SuggestionBrad Neuberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03274020042497854648noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191291.post-1363683634897370822007-12-31T13:43:00.000-08:002007-12-31T13:43:00.000-08:00@burtonator: I proudly give you a straw man Purple...@burtonator: I proudly give you a straw man Purple Include spec for you to crunch on, available here: http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2007/12/straw-man-proposal-for-purple-include.htmlBrad Neuberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03274020042497854648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191291.post-45907614211919511952007-12-31T11:58:00.000-08:002007-12-31T11:58:00.000-08:00@burtonator: Hey, that would be cool to get this i...@burtonator: Hey, that would be cool to get this into Spinn3r. I should put together a super-simple one page specy kind of thing for you to lean on. I'll put together a straw man proposal on here.Brad Neuberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03274020042497854648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191291.post-69527411779101587842007-12-31T11:56:00.000-08:002007-12-31T11:56:00.000-08:00@dewitt: Hi! Great to see you here :) Hope your Ne...@dewitt: Hi! Great to see you here :) Hope your New Years holiday is going well.<BR/><BR/>I have to disagree about the not using the Q and BLOCKQUOTE tags. I think Niall's suggestion is a good one, not because I believe in semantic purity (I actually dislike the XHTML cargo cult in general), but because it makes sense. Those tags already have a 'cite' attribute that gives a URI of what you are citing. URIs can specify not just full documents, but fragments and ranges as well (basically everything after the hash mark).<BR/><BR/>The one problem I see is that if we use BLOCKQUOTEs and Qs then we don't have a way to differentiate these from the ones that you want to have be 'live' and do a Purple Inclusion. Any thoughts? There are some different possibilities:<BR/><BR/>* Have a special 'class' attribute. I'm not a huge fan of using the 'class' attribute for such things, but it is pragmatic<BR/>* Have a new attribute, embed="true".<BR/>* Be XLinky about things and have a show="embed" attribute.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/> BradBrad Neuberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03274020042497854648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191291.post-30914274386987381512007-12-30T18:02:00.000-08:002007-12-30T18:02:00.000-08:00Hey.If you could add a CSS class to this I will tr...Hey.<BR/><BR/>If you could add a CSS class to this I will try to add support for this to Spinn3r.<BR/><BR/>They you can point out that it's used by some BIG companies for their crawl data.<BR/><BR/>The opportunity here is that while Javascript is only client side if you have enough include semantics in the markup robots can perform the same includes internally.<BR/><BR/>Onward!burtonatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08049781702053733725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3191291.post-71134935769893575682007-12-29T23:09:00.000-08:002007-12-29T23:09:00.000-08:00Hmm, I'm not sure that's what cite or q should be ...Hmm, I'm not sure that's what <B>cite</B> or <B>q</B> should be used for.<BR/><BR/>I'd recommend just adding a <B>src</B> attribute to your HTML tags. That would be consistent with the semantics of <B>src</B> (i.e., inlining external content) on existing elements that support it, such as <B>script</B> and <B>img</B>.<BR/><BR/>Sure it won't validate today, but doing something just to be structurally valid (and pass parsers) while still being semantically invalid (and thus fooling parsers) isn't really a win.<BR/><BR/>You may also want to bounce this off of Ian Hickson and the rest of the <A HREF="http://www.whatwg.org/" REL="nofollow">WHATWG</A> HTML5 list and see what they think.Queen Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02207868496894402347noreply@blogger.com